|
|
Home RS2011 Conference (Details) Call for Papers Conference Program Registration Sponsor/Exhibit Prior Conferences ORS Reference Search Contact Info |
|
Past Conference Papers:
Responsive Launch
| Paper Number RS1-2003-1001: DoD Access to Space for Small Satellites: Current Options and Directions | |
| Mark Mocio (Space Test Program) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper will outline the current technical and programmatic avenues for Department of Defense (DoD) small satellites to gain access to space. While DoD small satellites currently reside in the research and development arena, there are several efforts underway to increase access to space. These efforts are intended to reduce time to space and cost for research and development programs, but also in anticipation of future operational small satellites. This paper will discuss the DoD Space Test Program (STP) process, which is the primary method by which most DoD small satellites gain access to space. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) program will be discussed, with current plans outlined. Finally, recent Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) policy on secondary satellite access to space will be provided, with a brief synopsis of the current implementation. In conclusion, an assessment of the future of DoD small satellite access to space will be offered. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-1002: Operationally Responsive Spacelift for the U.S. Air Force | |
| Paul J. Kolodziejski (Space Command) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper will focus on the capabilities that the Air Force needs in order to meet emerging warfighter requirements for 2010-2020. The Operationally Responsive Spacelift Mission Need Statement will be discussed along with the Air Force’s plan to integrate various technologies to develop a responsive spacelift architecture. Recent responsive spacelift activities will also be discussed. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-2002: Improving Space-Asset Responsiveness Using the Shuttle Expendable Rocket for Payload Augmentation | |
| Randall Carlson (AFRL), Arnold Nowinski (AFRL), Jesse Jones (AFRL), Julia Rothman (AFRL), Steven Buckley (NGST) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The Air Force has a growing mission need for highly-responsive, reliable and orbitflexible micro-satellites. To respond to this need, the Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles Directorate (AFRL/VS), in collaboration with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Space Test Program (STP), is developing the SHuttle Expendable Rocket for Payload Augmentation— SHERPA. The SHERPA system will be a reliable, low-cost asset that will provide orbit flexibility and multi-mission capability from the Shuttle Hitchhiker Experimental Launch System (SHELS) and other launch platforms. Technologies that will be developed under SHERPA include hybrid chemical propulsion, Hall Effect electric propulsion, modular bus architecture, separation systems, miniature star tracker technologies, and guidance, navigation and control systems. Modularity is used to enhance the responsiveness and multimission capability of the SHERPA system. SHERPA is designed with capability for multi orbit changes, station keeping, and de-orbiting at the completion of a mission. The system is being developed toward a proposed flight demonstration in the 2005 timeframe. | |
| | |
| 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 RS1-2003-3003: "Launch-on-Demand"; A Revolutionary Paradigm for Space Utilization | |
| Jeff Summers (MicroSat Systems), Greg Heinsohn (MicroSat Systems), Greg Hegemann (MicroSat Systems) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Because of the growing diversity and technical sophistication of the countries that threaten the United States, there is a growing need for a rapidly deployed, elusive tactical satellite architecture. This would entail identification of the global point of interest and strategically placing a satellite into operation within days, if not hours. Critical to this “Launch-On-Demand” (LOD) capability is an agile launch platform with versatile trajectory, and the ability to “scramble” to launch in a very short time. The scenario considered to best meet these requirements is an air launch from an existing military aircraft. To enable such an agile launch platform requires significant reductions in spacecraft and payload mass and volume, with limits on the order of 100 kg and approximately 1 cubic meter. To achieve this, sacrifices in capability and reliability of the spacecraft/ booster system must be accepted. The philosophy forwarded here, is to accept a drop off in performance at the per unit level, and assure success at the mission level through quantity. The “dumb bullet” approach fires many low cost, low capability rounds to ensure one reaches the target. The challenge then becomes defining a per unit cost that, cumulatively amounts to mission cost equal or less than the same mission performed by a single, highly reliable satellite. The cost of a single, fully redundant satellite currently could range from $50-100M. Assuming a mission life of three years and due to the reductions in performance and reliability, it would take approximately twelve single LOD assets to perform the same mission. This sets the allowable cost for an LOD asset at about $4.2 M to preserve an equivalent mission cost. This cost comparison does not value the added benefits of LOD due to adaptability of objective over mission life and rapid responsiveness. To meet the cost constraints of an LOD system demands a strict adherence to the philosophy of “capabilities driven”. The mass, volume, and cost constraints of the airborne delivery platforms limit the capabilities of the satellite/payload. The various mission needs of the user community could then be used to establish a few, broad “niche” capability sets. These would be the basis for a set of “core” vehicles designed to satisfy the requirements of each “niche”. These core vehicles would then be outfitted with mission specific, modular “kits”, made up from stores of components with standardized interfaces, to focus their performance on unique mission needs. This approach would preserve the cost benefits of a mass producible standard bus, while optimizing performance. To enable an LOD approach and maximize capability within the constraints of launching from an aircraft, continued technology development is needed. As part of its on-going small satellite developments, MicroSat Systems Inc. has taken steps toward satellite component miniaturization and rapid satellite processing techniques that take advantage of web-based design and test tools. Flexible photovoltaics, miniature mass memory storage devices, conformal avionics, and modular, “smart” mechanical/electrical interfaces can enable drastic reductions in package size. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-5001: Responsive Launch With the Scorpius Family of Low-Cost Expendable Launch Vechicles | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm), Robert Conger (Microcosm), Jack Kulpa (Scorpius Space Launch Company) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Scorpius® is a family of low cost, expendable launch vehicles under development by Microcosm. The first orbital vehicle in the family is the Sprite Small Launch Vehicle (700 lbs to a 100 NMi circular orbit due East from the launch site), currently scheduled for its initial test flight in 2006. One of the top-level requirements on the entire vehicle family is to be able launch within 8 hours of arrival of the payload at the launch site or a formal request for launch for those payloads stored at the site. This paper addresses the economic, technical, regulatory, philosophical, and cultural hurdles to be overcome to achieve this objective and how we are going about getting over (or burrowing under or going around) these to get there. The most fundamental hurdle is economic, i.e., the launch vehicle itself must be sufficiently low cost to allow it to be built to inventory. The cost of the Sprite vehicle is about $2 million which represents an interest cost for vehicles in inventory of about $15,000 per month per vehicle which we believe would be acceptable in most business models. The technical hurdle is overcome largely by designing the vehicle from the outset to be moved and launched expeditiously ? i.e., stored as an assembled launcher to which the payload is attached and the completed vehicle is then transported to the pad, fueled, and launched. The most serious difficulties are largely the regulatory, philosophical, and cultural hurdles that dictate that launches in the West simply aren’t done in a few hours, even though this has been done in Russia for many years. In the U.S., there needs to be time for approvals, notices to air and ship traffic, and the cultural impediment that says that the payload “must” be checked out on the launch pad. These challenges are perhaps the biggest and must ultimately be addressed jointly by the launch provider, the customer, and the government. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-6004: Pistonless Dual Chamber Rocket Fuel Pump | |
| Steve Harrington (Flometrics) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: A positive displacement pistonless rocket fuel pump uses two pumping chambers alternately filled and pressurized in sequence to maintain a steady flow of pressurized propellant to a rocket engine. This pump fills the gap between pressure fed and turbopump rockets by making a lower cost rocket feasible without the weight of a pressure fed design or the high cost and complexity of a turbopump. Thrust to weight ratios are calculated for the pump using typical fuel combinations. For a 2219 aluminum LOX/RP-1 pump at 4 MPa the thrust/weight ratio of the pump is ~700. Design and test data for a prototype which pumps water at 3.5 MPa and 1.2 kg/s is presented. The low cost and simple construction of the pump allow for low cost, mass producible propulsion systems to fulfill a responsive space requirement. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-8003: DNEPR Program: Prospects and Advantages for Responsive Space | |
| Valdimir A. Andreev (International Space Company), Vladimir S. Mikhailov (International Space Company), Vladislav A. Solovey (International Space Company), Yuri N. Smagin (International Space Company) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Russian converted Dnepr-1 launch vehicle that has been in operation since 1999 may be of interest to low budget responsive space programs. This launch vehicle possesses the reliability index of 0.97 and the launch price within the range of $7-11 M. Performance capability to LEO is up to 3,700 kg. Prospective performance to GEO is 300 kg. Dnepr-1 will be available at the world’s space market until 2020. The Dnepr Program provides for creation of a space launch system by means of conversion of the Russian SS-18 ICBM. The program was initiated in 1997. Now the low budget programs for responsive space have a unique opportunity to use Russian efficient, low-cost launch system Dnepr-1. This system has a good flight history of 160 launches including 3 commercial flights that accounted for orbital injection of 12 spacecraft. Dnepr launch vehicle is based on SS-18 ICBM that was designed by a big team of Russian and Ukrainian aerospace companies. The SS-18 missile system is in service with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Program for development and commercial operation of Dnepr Space Launch System based on SS-18 ICBMs being eliminated is the largest Russian-Ukrainian conversion program. A large number of SS-18s (about 150) is available for conversion into Dnepr launch vehicles. This establishes a sound basis for implementation of space programs until 2016-2020. International Space Company (ISC) Kosmotras is in charge of the development and commercial operation of the Dnepr-1 launch vehicle on behalf of the presidents, governments and space agencies of Russia and Ukraine. Dnepr-1 is launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome that is located in Kazakhstan and therefore Kazakhstan is also involved in the Dnepr Program operations, which also enjoy the support of the President of Kazakhstan. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-9003: Atlas V/EELV Spiral Development of Responsive Space Launch | |
| Tim Gillespie (Lockheed Martin), Nancy Bowlin (Lockheed Martin) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The Lockheed Martin Atlas Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) team successfully completed its inaugural flight of the Atlas V, AV-001 launch vehicle on August 21, 2002. This successful first flight culminates the five year development of a new expendable launch system, and marks a major milestone in the mo dernization and improvement in performance, reliability, efficiency, and cost effectiveness of the U.S. space launch fleet. This significant space flight achievement will have far reaching and long lasting effects on the aerospace industry and the exploitation of space, providing effective, affordable and more responsive assured access to space for national security, civil, and commercial needs. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-9005: The Scorpius Expendable Launch Vehicle Family and Status of the Sprite Small Launch Vehicle | |
| Shyama Chakroborty (Microcosm), James R. Wertz (Microcosm), Robert Conger (Microcosm), Jack Kulpa (Scorpius Space Launch Company) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Microcosm and the Scorpius® Space Launch Company are developing a family of expendable launch vehicles that will provide low-cost, responsive access to space. The Scorpius® family includes single and two-stage suborbital and orbital vehicles with payloads ranging from 700 lbs to LEO for the Sprite Mini-lift Launch Vehicle to over 50,000 lbs to LEO (18,000 lbs to GTO) for the Heavy-lift vehicle. Two suborbital vehicles have been flown successfully from White Sands Missile Range, including the SR-XM-1 in March 2001, which was, effectively, a full-scale test of a Sprite pod, although not all of the Sprite components were flown. The first Sprite orbital launch is scheduled for 2006. This paper describes the technology and development plan of the Sprite Small Launch Vehicle (SLV). Starting with a contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory in 1993, technology development has progressed with increasing maturity in design, manufacturing techniques, and component development and qualification. Low-cost and scalable ablative engines based on flight-proven technology, allcomposite propellant tanks, and a Tridyne-based High Performance Pressurization System are all in the final stages of qualification. A low-cost baseline design has been developed for the Sprite upper stage. The Scorpius® modular design approach, built around scalable critical components such as the engines and all-composite propellant tanks, will allow us to transition from the Sprite SLV to the medium-lift Exodus and then to heavier-lift vehicles if the need justifies the economic investment. In addition to carrying primary payloads, the entire Scorpius® family will have provisions to use the excess lift for any launch to carry multiple, small auxiliary payloads at little or no cost for universities, industry, and government organizations to obtain component testing with quick turn-around. These auxiliary payloads remain attached to the stage, but are given access to power and telemetry. This allows the system to realize maximum benefit from each launch. The Scorpius® vehicles are designed to facilitate encapsulated payloads, vertical transport of the assembled vehicle to the pad, and little or no on-pad preparation. The low recurring cost allows us to build to inventory and enables true launch-on-demand. The design incorporates operational features and procedures that will allow us to launch Scorpius® vehicles within 8 hours of arrival of the payload at the launch site or a request for launch for payloads stored on site in a launchable configuration. Thus, Scorpius® is fully capable of meeting the challenge of responsive access to space. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-A001: Responsive Space: A Launch Vehicle Designer's Viewpoint | |
| Antonio Elias (OSC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-8000: Almost There: Responsive Space | |
| Grant Williams (SpaceDev), Frank Macklin (SpaceDev), Marti Sarigul-Klijn (SpaceDev), Nesrin Sarigul-Klijn (SpaceDev), Jim Benson (SpaceDev) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: SpaceDev is developing a hybrid-based small launch vehicle called StreakerTM. In addition to providing a low cost (<$5M total) alternative for launching microsats, Streaker is being designed to fulfill multiple responsive space requirements. By their very nature, the building blocks of the Streaker hybrid propulsion system, Nitrous Oxide and HTPB rubber, are inert, safe to handle, and readily storable. Range safety complexity is reduced by reduced toxic material handling requirements and by the Streaker thrust termination capability. Building on extensive hybrid motor testing conducted by AMROC and SpaceDev, the Streaker vehicle is transitioning into a modular launch system family, with configurations capable of either air or ground launch. As part of this development, the infrastructure is being developed to accommodate a mobile ground launch capability, and provision for rapid (hours) launch turnaround. Through a number of on-going programs at SpaceDev, the necessary components of the Streaker, i.e. the Common Core Booster (CCB), hybrid upper stage, and hybrid transfer stage (MoTV) are maturing, targeting a first launch in 2007-08. | |
| | |
| 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 RS2-2004-2004: Responsive Launch Vehicle Cost Model | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper presents a launch vehicle cost model designed specifically to estimate the additional economic cost of two related system properties that have substantial military utility — responsiveness and surge capability. In addition, the model can be used to compare alternative methods for achieving these objectives, such as reusable, partially reusable, or fully expendable vehicles. In general, we estimate that making small space systems responsive, i.e., being able to launch with a few hours or days of demand, will add less than 5% to the total system cost per launch. Surge capability is somewhat more expensive, increasing the total cost per launch from 5% to 35%. Having a robust surge capability and the ability to do it again quickly is the most expensive option and will likely increase the cost per launch by 30% to 80%. For all of the options considered, the cost per launch decreases with increasing number of launches per year. In addition, the percentage increase for responsiveness decreases with increasing launch rate as the impact of maintaining vehicles in inventory decreases. In all of the cases considered, expendable vehicles are lower cost than reusable vehicles for all launch rates considered, i.e., 5 launches per year to 100 per year. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-3005: Using IDOS To Develop Eagle into "Real" Flight Software to Support Responsive Missions | |
| D.T. Chen (Universal Space Lines) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The Integrated Development and Operations System (IDOS) is intended to be a rapid development and operations platform for new launch and atmospheric vehicles. A “real life experience” of its use to develop an advanced guidance algorithm is described here. The Evolved Acceleration Guidance Logic for Entry (EAGLE) is an advancement to existing entry guidance algorithms (such as that flown on the Space Shuttle) and has the potential to reduce the amount of pre-mission design effort, increase the range of entry opportunities and contribute to achieving “aircraft like” operations (i.e., responsive missions). EAGLE is based on the concept of planning and tracking aerodynamic acceleration profiles, a concept developed and proven effective in the Apollo and Shuttle programs. The most distinguishing feature of EAGLE relative to the Shuttle entry guidance is its ability to plan a three-dimensional trajectory, taking into account the longitudinal and lateral dimensions, and thereby handling entries as well as aborts with significant cross range motion. Development of EAGLE was started at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) under the supervision of Dr. Kenneth Mease. Part of its development was coordinated under the Marshall Space Flight Center’s (MSFC) Advanced Guidance and Control (AG&C) Technologies effort such that competing designs could be compared and analyzed by MSFC. EAGLE consistently obtained high scores in the various test cases defined for the AG&C effort. During development of IDOS, EAGLE was transitioned into the IDOS development environment and has continued development and testing. Development, implementation and test within IDOS required less than one “equivalent person” labor effort and was our “pathfinder” implementation to drive the IDOS development down a path that best supports the advanced algorithm development goal. Details of this development in IDOS will be presented, as well as results of its performance (flight quality objectives as well as performance on real time flight like processor hardware). Comparison to development time using traditional software development tools will be provided. This “case study” is just one example of how IDOS is an enabling technology for responsive missions. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-3000: Operational Concept Modeling for Responsive Space | |
| Herschel Melton (AllySoft), Yvonne Sheets (SPARTA) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper addresses the utility of the application of highly visually-oriented modeling techniques to system operational concept development and defines a methodology for migrating concepts into larger overarching architectures. This is crucial exercise which enables discussions about utility to the warfighter and supplies additional information about how future concepts my fit in the context of his mission. This paper describes an example of the application of these techniques to a Responsive Launch System and highlights the contribution of the modeling techniques to the development of the Operational Concepts themselves. The paper also explores characteristics of the tools available to support this approach, the application of the methodology and the potential utility of the tools. The tool utilized in the sample case was Extend™. This methodology also illustrates the role of such modeling within a “Team Environment” and how it can be applied to gain stakeholder buy-in early in the concept development process. We have also explored the possibility of a more formal role for such approaches in the initial phases of system development as part of a robust Systems Engineering process. These suggestions have derived from applications of this methodology to a broad set of concept development problems and have resulted in a set of lessons learned that will be discussed. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-4002: Transformational Spaceport & Range Technologies | |
| Cristina Guidi (KSC), Darin Skelly (KSC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Today there are 22 spaceports throughout the world and yet, unlike other transportation enterprises, the majority operate independently of one another. Each spaceport and range has its own uniqueness, catering to the vehicle specific designs and Agency or organization specific missions. A lack of an integrated national approach coupled with today’s paradigm where ground and launch operations infrastructure (also known as spaceport and range systems) is funded at the implementation phase of vehicle architectures causes the U.S. space access capability to be operations-intensive and extremely expensive. Revolutionary advancements in the reduction of cost and time to access space will not be realized without significant technological breakthroughs in the ground processing, launch operations, and air traffic control/range operation systems. For the only operational reusable launch vehicle (RLV), the Space Shuttle, more than 4 months are spent preparing the vehicle for its mission, which typically is less than two weeks in duration. In addition, costs associated with ground processing and launch operations equate to more than 45% - 60% of the overall life cycle costs for the program. An operational paradigm shift in spaceport and range is required if space access is to ever move more towards airport-like efficiencies. The space transportation system must be designed as a system rather than employing a “patchwork” approach of focusing on one vehicle architecture at a time rather than addressing a “suite” of architectures. Future vehicle architectures are steadily growing more diverse thus requiring a “master plan” for space transportation infrastructure that employs more flexible, responsive ground operations and launch technologies. The infusion of enabling technologies can help reduce the life cycle cost of the program as well as improve responsiveness. With architectures such as crewed and cargo-only, expendable and reusable, orbital and suborbital using a combination of propellants, a variety of launch locations, in addition to the current programs, these emerging vehicles will drive the need for upgrades to the spaceport and range infrastructure towards more flexible, interoperable, responsive infrastructure. | |
| | |
| 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 RS2-2004-6005: Challenges, Enabling Technologies and Technology Maturity for Responsive Space | |
| Kevin G. Bowcutt (Boeing), S. Jason Hatakeyama (Boeing) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The goals of responsive space may be best met with pure rocket technology, a combination of rocket and hypersonic air-breathing technology, or all-rockets followed by application of air-breathing propulsion at a later date. The optimal approach is difficult to determine today due to uncertainty and immaturity of the key technologies required by either approach. An added complication is the large number of technology options that can be combined in numerous ways to achieve responsive space systems. Propulsion is the primary technological challenge for responsive launch systems -- either low-maintenance, long-life, high thrust-to-weight ratio rocket engines or air-breathing turbine engines combined with scramjets. Additional technologies contributing both to vehicle performance and operational utility must also be matured before responsive space can be realized. In this paper, primary challenges and enabling technologies will be outlined for both rocket and air-breathing reusable launch vehicles, many of which are common to both, and a maturity assessment will be made for each. Technologies that improve vehicle performance, operational utility and other contributors to space launch responsiveness and low life cycle cost will be included in the assessment. Also outlined will be a recommended approach for determining which propulsion system or combination of propulsion systems will best meet the ultimate requirements of responsive space access based upon actual flight data. | |
| | |
| 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 RS2-2004-7003: A Status Report on the Development of a Nanosat Launch Vehicle and Associated Launch Vehicle Technologies | |
| John M. Garvey (Garvey Space Corporation), Eric Besnard (CSULB) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Much current attention on responsive launch capabilities is focusing on small launch vehicles that can deliver on the order of several hundred kilograms to low Earth orbit. However, for developers and operators of even smaller spacecraft with masses on the order of 10 or less kilograms, i.e. “nanosats” and “picosats,” this class of launch systems is still oversized and the costs are at least a magnitude too great. Consequently, an effort is presently under way to address this evolving launch service niche. Through the California Launch Vehicle Education Initiative (CALVEIN), a joint academic-industry team is developing and flight testing a series of prototype vehicles that are demonstrating and evaluating candidate technologies and operations for a notional nanosat launch vehicle – an “NLV” – that could deliver 10 kg to low polar orbit. To date, this program, which is hosted by the California State University, Long Beach, in partnership with Garvey Spacecraft Corporation, has developed four reusable LOX/ethanol launch vehicles and participated in seven flight tests as well as a similar number of static fire tests at the Mojave Test Area. Principal accomplishments include the first-ever powered flight test of a liquid propellant aerospike engine. In parallel, several classes of aerospace engineering students have gained invaluable experience working with actual flight hardware. Photo by Tony Richards This paper reports on the results of several recent NLVrelated research and development activities. These include the pioneering aerospike flight tests, ongoing development of low-cost thrust vector control subsystems and an initial static fire test using propylene as an alternative hydrocarbon fuel. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-8001: Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle: The Evolution of Responsive Launch | |
| Tim Gillespie (Lockheed Martin) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) inaugural flight of the Atlas V launch vehicle in 2002 culminated a major milestone in the modernization and improvement in performance, reliability, efficiency, and cost effectiveness of the U.S. space launch fleet to provide responsive, affordable assured access to space for national security, civil, and both domestic and international commercial needs. The EELV objectives were to develop a national expendable launch capability that reduces the overall cost of launch over existing Titan, Atlas and Delta launch systems, and improve reliability, operability, and availability, all key elements of responsive launch capability. These objectives were achieved by fielding a “system of systems” - launch vehicles, infrastructure, support systems, interfaces, mission integration, and launch operations - that provides assured access to space. The Atlas V Space Operations Center (ASOC) allows total systems level test of the vehicle, ground and flight support equipment, ensuring operational and vehicle readiness, prior to transition to the launch processing facility. Common, off-pad payload encapsulation facilities streamline launch operations by allowing parallel processing and system-level test of multiple payloads prior to integration with the launch vehicle, reducing on pad launch processing. Lockheed Martin’s “clean pad” launch concept allows for parallel launch processing, which improves operational responsiveness by reducing on pad time to less than 8 hours, and reduces pad refurbishment time from one month for Titan IV to less than 5 days for Atlas V. The combination of streamlined approach and complementary launch vehicles provides true assured access and significantly improved operational responsiveness. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-8002: Hypersonic Freighter Concept, Description and Capabilities | |
| Dale L. Jensen (JENTEC), Robert Kleinberger (Lunar Rocket & Rover Company) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: A glider carrying a thousand pounds of payload is boosted to hypersonic sub-orbital velocity at about sixty nautical miles altitude. From this point it glides and skips along the top of the stratosphere. This glide is extended over an intercontinental distance after which it descends to a landing. A preliminary vehicle is designed and, aerodynamics are calculated. Using these data, a skip glide trajectory is computed, using six skips, to reach the coast of Africa. Also calculated are the Mach number and the stagnation temperature during the flight. Means for temperature control are outlined. Potential launch vehicles are discussed, and guidance, navigation, and control concept is presented. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-8003: Responsive Air Launch | |
| Mr. Warren Frick (OSC), Joseph Guerci (DARPA), Brian Horais (Schafer Corporation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The 2002 Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS) Mission Need Statement “establishes the requirement for responsive, on-demand access to, through and from space.” (R-2 Summary, PE 064855F). The majority of today’s orbital launch capabilities are constrained by geographic locations, range control availability and the lack of flexibility to rapidly adjust to demands that can change within hours or minutes. A truly responsive operationally responsive spacelift capability must be able to place a tactically significant payload into the orbit of choice at any time, from any accessible location and be able to conduct self-contained launch operations. Airlaunch of tactical payloads offers a unique capability for truly responsive spacelift because of its ability to fly to a desired launch position worldwide and conduct launch operations independent of external range control systems. DARPA directly supported the development of Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Pegasus Air Launch Vehicle (ALV) during the late 1980s and early 1990s under the DARPA Advanced Space Technology Program (ASTP). Pegasus continues to provide a unique capability for launch of tactically significant payloads into low earth orbit from their dedicated L-1011 launch aircraft. Earlier test launches of Pegasus were conducted from a modified B-52 that had been adapted for launch of large R&D payloads, such as the X-15. Because of the increased emphasis on truly responsive space launch (in days, not months) to support the warfighter, DARPA has initiated a study to address the feasibility of air-launching tactically significant payloads from existing military aircraft with minimal or no modification to the military aircraft. The study will address enabling technologies, responsive launch operations, and onboard aircraft range control capabilities for air-launch of tactical payloads into orbit. The paper will summarize the findings of this study and address the potential for further development of air launch of tactical space payloads from existing U.S. military aircraft. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-8004: RASCAL - A Demonstration of Operationally Responsive Space Launch | |
| Jacob Lopata (The Space Launch Corporation), Burt Rutan (Scaled Composites) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: In March 2002, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated the Rapid Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch (RASCAL) program and established the goal of creating a launch system capable of responsively and routinely providing spacelift for small payloads at significantly reduced cost. RASCAL is a highly responsive, economical launch system capable of placing a 150 kg payload into an easterly low-Earth-orbit at a recurring cost below $10,000/kg. The RASCAL system consists of a reusable aircraft as the launch platform for a two-stage expendable rocket vehicle (ERV). A significant feature of the RASCAL aircraft is the ability for exo-atmospheric flight using a propulsion enhancement known as Mass Injection Pre-Compressor Cooling, or MIPCC. Now more than halfway through Phase II, a design configuration update and discussion of programmatic successes is provided, as well as a vision of future RASCAL operations. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-8005: Design Trade Space Analysis For Air-Launched Spacelift Vehicles | |
| Preston Carter (DARPA), Owen Brown (DARPA), Paul Eremenko (Booz Allen Hamilton), Jennifer Hudson (Booz Allen Hamilton), Rebecca Lynch (Booz Allen Hamilton), Jason Tardy (CENTRA Technology) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: The concept of air launch, whereby an air vehicle in flight releases a rocket vehicle which inserts a payload into orbit, has emerged as a leading architecture for meeting the reduced cost and improved responsiveness and flexibility requirements of the military user. The key design parameters that affect the sizing of these architectures are the conditions (speed, altitude, and flight path angle) at which the air vehicle releases the rocket vehicle, and the orbital payload requirement. These parameters are sufficient to conduct conceptual design and sizing studies. The analysis documented in this paper focuses on the selection of air-rocket staging conditions. The trade space for the staging conditions is identified and the key drivers discussed. Additionally, some results on scaling based on orbital payload requirements are also presented. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A013: FALCON SLV: Driving an Operationally Efficient Solution | |
| James Bray (Lockheed Martin) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A014: An Introduction to Orbital Sciences Corporation and Concepts for FALCON and Responsive Space Launch | |
| Ferguson (OSC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A015: Team Air Launch | |
| Hudson (Team Air Launch) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A016: The Schafer Family of Affordable, Responsive, and Multi-Mission Launch | |
| Schafer (Schafer) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A017: The Falcon Launch Vehicle: Towards Operationally Responsive Space | |
| Shotwell (SpaceX) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A022: Wallops Flight Facility | |
| Reed (WFF) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A023: Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft System Design Using Pistonless Pump | |
| Steve Harrington (Flometrics) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A025: The Design Trade Space for Air-Launched Spacelift | |
| Preston Carter (DARPA), Owen Brown (DARPA) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A026: Hypersonic Freighter | |
| Dale Lawrence Jensen (JENTEC), Robert Kleinberger (Lunar Rocket & Rover Company) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A027: Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle | |
| Tim Gillespie (Lockheed Martin) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| 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 RS3-2005-2006: Commercial Suborbital Spaceflight and Its Relevance to Responsive Space | |
| Jeff Foust (Futron Corporation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: A major issue for responsive space operations is determining how to develop and operate launch systems that are both responsive and effective. This issue is also being tackled in parallel by the nascent commercial suborbital launch industry, as new vehicles are developed to support emerging markets, including space tourism. If these vehicles do come into high demand, they provide operational paradigms and other lessons learned that are applicable to responsive space operations. The first section of this paper examines the markets that are being pursued by commercial suborbital vehicle developers. The best known, and largest, of these is space tourism, or public space travel. A market study performed by the Futron Corporation in 2002 shows that demand or such services will be high, at least by the standards of the space industry, with over 4,000 potential passengers per year by 2015 and over 15,000 by 2021. Meeting this demand will require hundreds of suborbital launches a year. In addition, other markets, ranging from remote sensing to microgravity science, have the potential to stimulate additional demand for suborbital launch services. Suborbital flight’s relevance to responsive space takes two forms. One, suborbital vehicles themselves can fill some of the roles envisioned for responsive space operations, such as reconnaissance and microsatellite launch. A bigger role, though, will be the operational lessons that suborbital spaceflight can offer to responsive space developers. Specific lessons will emerge over time, but will likely include the need for standard payloads and interfaces to shorten payload integration time, and the need for “aircraft-like” operations that require small teams and short periods of time. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-7004: Aerodynamic and Propulsion Assisted Maneuvering for Orbital Transfer Vehicles | |
| Patrick R. Jolley (Utah State University), Stephen A. Whitmore (Utah State University) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The ability to perform rapid and unpredicted orbital transfers will provide the ability for unpredictable reconnaissance or timely rescue missions. This paper examines the means and ways of enabling responsive space through propulsive or aero-assisted maneuvers. A conical hypersonic waverider was designed to execute these maneuvers. The aerodynamic database was generated using hypersonic incidence angle analysis tools with a viscous skin-drag correction. A comparative performance analysis is performed by examining some of the vehicle’s qualities. Some of these are stagnation point heating, handling qualities and controllability, etc. The orbital transfer trajectories were analyzed using an interactive simulation tool. Results have confirmed previous research that aero-assisted maneuvers are more efficient than purely propulsive maneuvers alone for executing synergetic plane changes. These results are contingent on the basis that the vehicle has an integrated propulsion system and has a thermal protection system as analyzed here. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-6001: Aquarius Low Cost Launch Main Engine Study | |
| Andrew E. Turner (Loral) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Congressional funding has been provided to study the main engine for the new low-cost launch vehicle Aquarius. The goals and background to this study are discussed in this paper, and an overview of the planned approach to developing and testing a concept for a new lower-cost engine is presented. The new engine concept is the Vortex Cooled Chamber Wall engine by ORBITEC, which has been evaluated only at small scales up to this point. The Aquarius vehicle, which incorporates this new engine and other innovations promises to reduce launch cost by an order of magnitude. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-6003: The Evolution of Space Launch Booster Designs In the 21st Century | |
| Matt Steele (OSC), Warren Frick (OSC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The future technical approaches for space launch vehicles in the 2010-2050 timeframe will mirror the development and evolution of the US and Soviet ICBM fleet during the cold war. The result of objective trade studies yields simple, solid propellant launch systems that cost less, are more responsive, and more reliable than today’s liquid propellant space launch fleet. As future space payloads mature and become more standardized and miniaturized, the pressure for lower cost launch platforms will increase. The result will be a move away from expensive, high performance liquid fueled systems and towards systems that can deliver payloads to space inexpensively and reliably. For launch systems where responsiveness is crucial, the use of a solid propellant system will be seen as the ultimate solution to the problem, just as today’s nuclear-tipped ICBMs are the evolution of a similar problem faced by the US Air Force. For the launches where low cost and flexibility in orbital inclination is required, a hybrid system, with a re-usable first stage and an expendable solid propellant system for the upper stages will be the logical choice. Once the launch rate can justify the fixed investment of the reusable stage, the marginal cost per flight can significantly lower overall launch costs. Incremental technological advances in materials, processes, and launch procedures will combine to lower costs and reduce risk of these systems. Companies that can exploit these technologies in a cost effective manner will maintain a competitive advantage over those tied to older, more complex and failure-prone systems or those exploring high risk, high payoff breakthrough technologies. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-6005: Operationally Responsive Space: The Vision Launch Architecture Is Dependent On The Requirements | |
| Slater B. Voorhees (Lockheed Martin), N. Patrick Hansen (Lockheed Martin), Heather J. Swenson (Lockheed Martin) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: There have been numerous studies in recent years addressing the government’s desire for a rapid response launch system. An upfront focus on detailed requirements is imperative to determine an optimal launch architecture but often times an architecture type, being expendable, reusable or hybrid (reusable first stage and expendable upper stage), is chosen before a complete set of requirements has been defined. Prematurely choosing the architecture type could result in a solution that is less than optimal from an economic and design standpoint. A requirement that is prominent in today’s aerospace environment is the overall architecture life cycle cost (LCC) which is believed to be driven by the individual launch cost of the system. This paper presents a LCC tool that can be utilized to help determine the optimal architecture solution. Using representative design concepts of a fully reusable, fully expendable, and hybrid launch architectures, we have modeled the effects on LCC when varying requirements such as the life of the program, theoretical first unit cost, and nonrecurring cost. Specific examples will be presented that illustrate that the appropriate choice of the requirements, input parameters, and figures of merit (FOM) on the optimal architecture is imperative to performing a launch architecture analysis. Slight variations in the input parameters or improper choice of a FOM can result in an architecture being identified as optimal incorrectly. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-6006: A Rocket-Powered Technology Demonstrator for Responsive Access to Space | |
| Daniel P. Raymer (Conceptual Research Corporation), Jess Sponable (AFRL), Timothy Fry (University of Dayton Research Institute), Jeremy Zanzig (Analytical Methods), Jared R. Ethier (Composite Engineering), Mitchell Burnside Clapp (Pionneer Rocketplane) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: A six-company team headed by Conceptual Research Corporation is developing a design concept for a rocket-powered technology demonstrator under funding from USAFWPAFB, with administrative and technical assistance from the University of Dayton Research Institute. This “Micro-X” demonstrator offers affordable and incremental demonstration of responsive space access system concepts and enabling technologies, and will demonstrate high-tempo reusability in an operational environment. To keep the program affordable, the Micro-X demonstrator will have an empty weight of less than 10,000 lbs yet will be capable of reaching space altitudes and hypersonic speeds. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A002: Hybrid Mobile Launch System | |
| (Lockheed Martin) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A003: DARPA FALCON Program | |
| Robert E. Conger (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A005: Responsive Range | |
| Herb Bachner (FAA Space System Development Division) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A006: Mid-Range Vision for Launch and Test Range System | |
| Michael B Coolidge (Satellite and Launch Control) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A008: NASA Wallops Research Range | |
| Jay Pittman (WFF) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS4-2006-2001: Responsive Air Launch Using F-15 Global Strike Eagle | |
| Timothy T. Chen (Boeing), Preston W. Ferguson (Boeing), David A. Deamer (Boeing) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: A near term military need exists for a capability to execute global strike, responsive spacelift and space control missions. This paper presents an innovative concept based on integrating off-the-shelf components to provide this capability, while avoiding technology development risk. The concept would utilize an F-15E with minimal modifications to provide a reusable first stage for the F-15GSE (Global Strike Eagle). The upper stages of the F-15GSE would consist of currently available solid rocket motors packaged to meet the mission requirements. The F-15GSE concept could provide an “all azimuth” capability from a single CONUS base while reducing the Delta-V required for orbital insertion by 5000 fps versus a ground launch rocket system. Advantages of an F-15GSE system include: increased mission flexibility, rapid response time without deployment of assets, multiple basing options and covert launches. Operational missions could be completed within two hours while on alert status with minimal infrastructure from CONUS or remote bases. Initially this concept could provide a low-cost demonstration of global strike, while military operational capability could be met with an expansion of fleet size. The F-15GSE would be capable of global reach with delivery of munitions including the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) and also provide a LEO launch capability for microsats. Planned future upgrades are available to enhance capability for delivering heavier ballistic and orbital payloads. | |
| | |
| 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 RS4-2006-2003: QuickReach Responsive Launch System | |
| Gary C. Hudson (Airlaunch) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The QuickReach air-launched SLV will be described and progress in Phase 2A and 2B of the DARPA Falcon program noted. QuickReach is a small, two-stage Space Launch Vehicle that is airlaunched from a cargo transport aircraft. Designed to be highly responsive, it will provide a call-up time of 24 hours or less, and will be able to place a 1,000 lbs spacecraft in the reference orbit. The SLV will be able to meet a cost goal of $5M or under at a launch rate of 20/yr. To date, drop tests have been conducted, along with Stage Two engine firings and other component development. Progress towards a first demonstration launch will be discussed. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS4-2006-2006 alt: Responsive Low-Cost Launchers Available Today, Orbital Launching While Others are Talking | |
| Keith Emerson (Orbital Science Corporation), Scott Schoneman (Orbital Science Corporation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS) is a topic that has been gaining increasing emphasis in support of Military Space operations. There are a variety of new concepts in various stages of development that are specifically focused on this requirement. However, most of them require a significant amount of investment to achieve the ultimate objective of low cost responsive launch. Moreover, as development programs they have little to no actual launch history and are subject to schedule and cost growth risks that are not unusual with new launch vehicle developments. As an alternative, Orbital programs such as the Orbital Suborbital Program (OSP) Minotaur family, Pegasus, and Taurus launch vehicles are fully capable now of meeting most of the ORS objectives with a relatively small amount of additional investment and at much lower risk. While we have heard much discussion of savings in the launch industry in the last couple of years we have seen one unsuccessful launch and many PowerPoint presentations on the transformation that is yet on the horizon. Orbital stands ready to provide responsive space launch capabilities that are far down the learning curve, continue to prove launch success, and have the benefit of launching while the alternative discussions continue. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS4-2006-4004: Sounding Rocket Technology Demonstration for Small Satellite Launch Vehicle Project | |
| John Tsohas (Purdue University), Lloyd J. Droppers (Purdue University), Stephen D. Heister (Purdue University) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Purdue University is embarking on a program to demonstrate technologies critical to the development of a small satellite launch vehicle. The first phase of the program involves design, fabrication, testing and flight of a hybrid propulsion sounding rocket from the NASA Wallops flight facility. This paper details the design and test work that has been achieved to date. Propulsion work includes successful hot fire tests of a flight weight, 180 lbf thrust hydrogen peroxide / HTPB hybrid rocket motor at the Purdue rocket test facilities. The tests confirmed the structural integrity of the engine, verified the thermal insulation ablator design, helped determine solid grain regression rate and verified the engine performance characteristics with the internal ballistics simulation code. Detailed design of vehicle plumbing, structure, propulsion, avionics, and recovery subsystems has been completed. The rocket consists of a carbon-fiber composite aero-structure, welded aluminum oxidizer tank, and a fiberglass composite internal structure. A nitrogen blowdown system is used to provide the engine with oxidizer, and the recovery system has dual redundancy. In addition, detailed design has been completed on the ground support equipment used for remote loading and draining operations of liquid hydrogen peroxide to and from the vehicle, while monitoring critical vehicle parameters. Remote disconnect of umbilical cords, engine ignition, launch and aborts are also functions of the ground support equipment. A trajectory analysis and vehicle aerodynamics code was developed to design the vehicle geometry, stability, and mass allocation. Follow-on flights of the technology demonstration vehicle will include the addition of a pressure fed cycle and a thrust vector system with associated guidance and control hardware and software. The second phase of the paper details the conceptual design of a small satellite launch vehicle designed to place 10 lb university or research payloads in low Earth orbit. In order to make use of the already existing rocket test facilities at Purdue and to keep test costs low, the thrust of the first stage engine was constrained to less than 10,000 lbf. To reduce costs associated with structural design, analysis and manufacturing, a three stage launch vehicle with a low propellant mass fraction for each stage (~76%) would be designed. Hybrid propulsion would be used due to its relative simplicity and safety over liquid bi-propellant systems. Hydrogen peroxide would be used as an oxidizer due to the high density Isp and its non-toxic, and non-cryogenic properties. This would lead to a reduction in operations costs and increased safety in propellant handling in comparison with other candidate oxidizers. A small composite solid propellant third stage would provide the final delta-V at the desired orbital altitude. Thus, a three stage launch vehicle with a GLOW of 6,400 lb and 8,700 lbf thrust first stage engine would satisfy the above design requirements. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-5002: Minotar I Demonstration of Responsive Launch for the TacSat-2 Mission | |
| Scott Schoneman (Orbital Sciences Corporation), Lou Amorosi (Orbital Sciences Corporation), Mike Laidley (Orbital Sciences Corporation), Kevin Wilder (Orbital Sciences Corporation), Bob Huntley (Orbital Sciences Corporation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: On 16 December 2006, a Minotaur I space launch vehicle (SLV) successfully placed the TacSat-2 and GeneSat-1 spacecraft into orbit following its launch from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Island, VA. The mission was a ground breaking demonstration of ORS launch capabilities. Starting with a contract award and kick-off in late May 2006, the vehicle was ready to launch in less than seven months. Achieving this responsive capability required a dramatic compression of the normal mission integration, range interface, and field processing schedules. The final field processing schedule from the start of spacecraft mating to readiness for launch was independently monitored and timed to show the capability to launch with a call up goal of one week. The cumulative measured time for critical operations was less than 6 days of processing, fully accomplishing the ORS goal for rapid spacecraft launch. The lessons learned from the efforts to dramatically reduce the schedules will be applied to further reduce the response time of the full family of Minotaur vehicles in support of future ORS missions. In addition to being readied for launch in record time, the TacSat-2 mission also demonstrated a number of firsts. Most significantly, it was also the first launch from the MARS launch facility, which is at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) near Chincoteague, VA. This was the first successful ground-based space launch from Wallops Island in 21 years. The TacSat-2 vehicle was the first Minotaur I to fly a larger, 61 inch diameter fairing and was also the first time a RocketCam on board video camera was flown on a Minotaur vehicle. Moreover, the integration of the GeneSat-1 secondary pico¬spacecraft was accomplished in a compressed schedule less than four months. This paper and presentation will cover how the TacSat-2 launch was accomplished in an unprecedented responsive timeline and how this demonstration is directly applicable to support of ORS mission by Minotaur vehicles in the future, including the larger Minotaur IV and V launch vehicles. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-5003: Simplifying the Structural Verification Process to Accommodate Responsive Launch | |
| Thomas P. Sarafin (Instar Engineering and Consulting), Poti G. Doukas (Instar Engineering and Consulting) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: With existing launch systems, it typically takes at least three years from the time the decision is made to launch a payload into space and the time that launch actually takes place. This lead time is quite often driven by the process of payload integration: meetings, analyses, and tests that together ensure compatibility between the launch vehicle (LV) and its payload. Thus, an important way to reduce response time is to engineer the system to minimize, if not eliminate, the need for recurring engineering associated with payload integration. A high percentage of payload-integration activities are associated with dynamics, launch loads, and vibration, all of which are influenced by the unique characteristics of the payload. Addressing these problems traditionally requires several cycles of coupled loads analysis (CLA), entailing the integration of math models of the payload(s) with those of the launch vehicle, calculation of responses to transient events such as ignition, and evaluation of results. Each cycle typically takes three to six months. Modal survey testing of the payload is often required to develop a test-verified math model, as is testing to demonstrate structural integrity. And analysis reports are generated, transmitted, and reviewed. Such activities can be greatly simplified or perhaps avoided altogether by good, up-front engineering. This paper will explore ideas on how to do that good, up-front engineering, with the following goals for relatively small payloads: 1) Eliminating the need for mission-specific CLA. The associated justification would be achieved through combined use of vibration isolation, specified payload constraints (define a “box”), and up-front “variational” CLA (to assess the extremities of the box). The enabling technology exists for rapid iterations of CLA with varying payload parameters. 2) Simplifying the payload’s structural verification process such that all that is needed is a simple, 3¬axis test on a shaker, with no need for transmittal of math models or structural analysis reports. Pass the test and you’re good to go. The vibration test would include low-level sine-sweep testing to confirm natural frequencies are above the required minimum, sine-burst testing for strength verification, and random vibration testing. 3) Lessening the severity of random vibration and the risk of test failure. For small payloads, random vibration is often more troublesome than quasi-static and transient loads, which are addressed by CLA. Random vibration testing is harsh, often unrealistically so, and many small payloads suffer costly failures during such tests. Attempts to reduce severity by force-limited testing or notching the input environment invite misuse and drive engineering costs. Many payload organizations do not take advantage of these techniques because they do not understand them. An effective isolation system, a subject of this paper, should greatly reduce the severity of the random vibration environment and potentially eliminate the need for notching. These ideas were developed during DARPA’s Responsive Access, Small Cargo, Affordable Launch (RASCAL) program. Unfortunately, that program was cancelled before the ideas could be implemented and demonstrated. This paper will capture those ideas and expand on them. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-5004: Progress in Technology Demonstration for a Small Hybrid Launch Vehicle | |
| John Tsohas (Purdue University), Lloyd J. Doppers (Purdue University), E. Glenn Case IV (Purdue University), Erik M. Dambach (Purdue University), Stephen D. Heister (Purdue Univsersity) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: A hybrid rocket technology demonstrator is being developed and tested at Purdue University to serve as a test bed for flight testing technologies critical to the development of a small satellite launch vehicle. Consistent with this goal the demonstrator will test subsystems such as hybrid propulsion, propellant feed systems, ground support equipment, recovery systems, thrust vector control, guidance, etc. Both 25 lbf and 250 lbf thrust hybrid rocket motors have been successfully hot-fire tested at the Purdue rocket test facilities. This paper details the progress made since the aforementioned hot-fire tests. The dual redundant recovery subsystem was successfully ground and flight tested using a solid motor booster, achieving an altitude of 4700 feet and reaching a maximum Mach number of 0.53. In addition, manufacturing and testing was completed on the ground support equipment used for remote loading and draining operations of hydrogen peroxide to and from the vehicle. Fully integrated demonstration flight vehicle hold down tests were completed, incorporating the 250 lbf thrust, 90% hydrogen peroxide/HTPB hybrid rocket motor, carbon-fiber airframe as well as flight qualified recovery and avionics subsystems. Launch of the 250 lbf thrust demonstration flight vehicle to an altitude of approximately 4000 feet will take place in the coming months. Also under development is a 900 lbf thrust, multi-port, 90% hydrogen peroxide/ polyethylene hybrid rocket motor. This motor will be used to power the demonstration flight vehicle to altitudes exceeding 20,000 feet for flight testing of the thrust vector control subsystem at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility. A liquid injection thrust vector control (LITVC) subsystem creates side forces by injecting hydrogen peroxide in the supersonic portion of the nozzle and was chosen for our application. The LITVC subsystem currently under design will be hot-fire tested at Purdue rocket test facilities to obtain critical LITVC parameters such as side force and Isp data. In addition, guidance, navigation, and control software and hardware is being designed for use with the LITVC subsystem. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-4006: Standardization Promotes Flexibility: A Review of CubeSats’ Success | |
| Alexander Chin (California Polytechnic State University), Roland Coelho (California Polytechnic State University), Lori Brooks (California Polytechnic State University), Ryan Nugent (California Polytechnic State University), Puig-Suari (California Polytechnic State University) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper will focus on the continuing development of the Poly Pico-satellite Orbital Deployer or P-POD, and its leading role in standardizing CubeSat satellite development. The paper will reflect on past mission successes and look to the future capability and promise of larger standards for access to space. Cal Poly’s role on the standardization of CubeSats through the P-POD will be explained. The initial creation of the P-POD was driven by the need for consistency in pico-satellite development. The P-POD protects the launch vehicle and the primary payload as well as the CubeSats, and is compatible with many launch vehicles, making integration repeatable and cost-efficient. The P-POD can accommodate pico-satellites as long as they meet the 1kg and10x10x10cm dimensional CubeSat standard. Mass producing a stock deployment device creates reliability in flight heritage and decreases design, manufacturing and testing costs. The P-POD provides a framework for developers to design around, and enforces adherence to the CubeSat specification. In turn, the P-POD is designed with the capability to integrate onto multiple launch vehicles. The advantages of this system are most evident in creating flexibility for CubeSat developers to launch on multiple rockets as secondary payloads. Since most satellite manufacturers must coordinate directly with the launch vehicle provider, CubeSats can find it difficult to find launches as secondary payloads. The P-POD can group multiple CubeSats to provide a competitive basis for launch as a viable secondary payload. This has allowed CubeSat developers to develop their system without a preset launch. A review of the P-POD flights over the past 5 years, and an outline of future launches consistently show the value of regulations and the benefits of flexibility. One of the main keys to the success of the CubeSat Program has been its strict adherence to the initial standard. Cal Poly, NASA Ames, and other organizations are looking to incorporate similar standards to larger satellites in an effort to bring low-cost access to space for a wider range of spacecraft. These efforts will utilize the efficiency of the P-POD and will incorporate outside influence in developing future standards. CubeSats provide a unique flexibility in the aerospace industry opening up quicker and cheaper mission opportunities than ever before. In addition, the research at the CubeSat level offers a unique paradigm shift in design operations. This means that the structure and hardware are designed first, while software development comes second. Ultimately missions can focus on meeting the standard and developing satellites and not on launch logistics and integration. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-6002: Satellite Component Load Reduction Using SoftRide | |
| Raman Johal (CSA Engineering, Inc.), Paul S. Wilke (CSA Engineering, Inc.), Conor D. Johnson (CSA Engineering, Inc.) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: For Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) to be a success, a satellite must be able to launch into orbit on any available launch vehicle (LV) with only a few days (or weeks) notification. To further enable responsiveness, these spacecraft might need to have previously unplanned mission critical instruments or components added to the bus just prior to launch. For ORS to be as flexible as intended, these late-stage components must not fail due to the launch loads, yet these components most likely will not be included in a coupled loads analysis cycle to adequately quantify their risk of failure. To help enable ORS, one of two things must occur: a) prior to designing the component, all possible loads from all possible launch vehicles must be surveyed (since each has its own characteristic launch loads) and the mounts for the components must be designed structurally to withstand the highest possible set of loads, or b) a whole-spacecraft vibration and/or shock isolation system could be integrated between the spacecraft and the LV to greatly reduce the transmission of vibration and shock loads from whichever vehicle is chosen. The major drawback to the first solution is that the resulting components will be structurally over-designed and much heavier than necessary. The second solution offers much more flexibility for the mission commander in terms of a lighter, higher capability spacecraft; the reduced structural mass can be used more effectively in the form of more late-stage instruments onboard and the spacecraft can be launched on any available LV. Whole-spacecraft vibration and shock isolation systems (SoftRide) have been developed and flown to attenuate dynamic loads for several launch vehicles, and are currently in development for other launch vehicles and loading environments. To further enable responsive space, advanced knowledge of the dynamic environments of the launch vehicles and various size satellites could be gained by developing generic satellite models that cover the size ranges under consideration. Coupled-loads analyses could be performed that will develop the characteristics (stiffness, damping, and strength requirements) of a whole-spacecraft vibration and/or a shock isolation system that will mitigate the effects of the dynamic loads for each combination of satellite and LV. From these characteristics, a family of two, three, or four (if needed) isolation systems that will satisfy the requirements for all combinations could be developed and manufactured. The resulting isolators could be on-the-shelf and a simple chart of key spacecraft and LV characteristics could determine which SoftRide system to install in the field. Implementing a whole-spacecraft isolation system can provide benefits for responsiveness for other aspects of the mission, not just spacecraft design and launch. Using SoftRide during payload vibration testing will reduce the risk of experiencing a test failure, thereby decreasing delays due to repair and re-test. Including SoftRide in the spacecraft’s shipping container further protects against component failure due to shock and vibration loads from transport and handling. This will facilitate smooth spacecraft integration onto the LV. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-5001: Responsiveness of the Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle, Associated Challenges, and Projected Improvements | |
| Jonathan Hofeller (Space Exploration Technologies), Brian Bjelde (Space Exploration Technologies), Max Vozoff (Space Exploration Technologies) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Space Exploration Technologies launch vehicle family is designed to provide the world’s lowest cost access to orbit and aims to be a key service provider in the responsive launch industry. In March 2007, SpaceX’s second Falcon 1 demonstration succeed in reaching an altitude of 180 miles (290 km), which is certainly enough for orbit. While the second stage didn't achieve full orbital velocity due to a roll excitation late in the burn, SpaceX successfully proved 95% of its subsystems including 1st stage ascent, avionics operation in vacuum, stage separation, 2nd stage ignition, fairing separation, and 2nd stage nozzle/chamber at steady state temp in vacuum. Furthermore, SpaceX was successful in demonstrating drastic improvements in all aspects of responsive pre-launch and ground operations. The entire mission timeline, from Customer Kick-off to Launch, was achieved in 8 months and one week. This included significant vehicle design changes, re-qualification of vehicle avionics, refurbishment of the launch site, and integration of a complex payload. This mission came close to achieving the original DARPA FALCON Program objective for “Call-up” (Storage to Alert Status) of <24hrs (assuming a 24/7 work force), and did easily achieve the objective for Alert Status to Launch of <24hrs. This mission also demonstrated a highly autonomous ground control system and rapid recycle from a hot-fire abort to launch in under 70 minutes. This successful rapid turn-around would not have been possible without the innovative and responsive autonomous ground control software and auto-sequences developed for the Falcon 1. With two Falcon 1 launches on the manifest in 2008, SpaceX has been battling the many challenges associated with return-to-flight and has fought to stay responsive in light of inevitable design iterations associated with new system development. Under this new responsive paradigm return-to-flight timelines must be redefined. While SpaceX’s fail early and often approach to subsystem design has been the key enabler for the rapid development of the Falcon 1, design for reusability and increased reliability have both played a role in extending Falcon 1’s return to flight. Consistent with its corporate philosophy of rapid and continuous improvement, SpaceX plans to demonstrate extraordinary advancements in responsive contracting, iterative vehicle design, and reduced launch operation timelines over the coming year. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-5003: Investigation of Combined Air-breathing/Rocket Propulsion for Air Launch of Micro-Satellites from a Combat Aircraft | |
| Avichai Socher (Israel Institute of Technology), Alon Gany (Israel Institute of Technology) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This work presents the analytical results of a parametric investigation of a launch concept of micro-satellites from a combat aircraft. The concept of air launching of a satellite from a carrier aircraft is not new; however, most designs consider heavy aircraft and launch vehicle to place a mini to a large satellite that are typically launched today via ground-based rocket launchers. Documented air launcher designs usually incorporate a lift aided trajectory. It is the authors’ intention to present a method for air launching of a low-cost tactical micro-satellite, on demand, for various missions detailed ahead, using a weight economical vehicle via a Gravity Turn Trajectory. The carrier aircraft will be an F-15 fighter, and the launcher will be a 3-stage vehicle, assembled from a Ducted Rocket Ramjet 1st stage and two solid propellant rocket stages. The option of an air-breathing engine for the first stage results from the high initial speed (as high as Mach 1.6) provided to the launcher by the carrier aircraft. The use of an air-breathing engine utilizes its higher energetic performance compares to a standard solid rocket engine (higher Isp and lower weight). A Ducted Rocket Ramjet was chosen over other ramjet configurations for its higher thrust coefficient. An optimization on initial flight path angle, 1st and 2nd motors' sizing was done. The solution presents a concept for placing a 50-100 kg micro-satellite in either a circular 250 km LEO or a more elliptic LEO. It is demonstrated that an air-launch of a micro-satellite from a combat aircraft is a viable solution. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-5004: An Affordable Micro Satellite Launch Concept in Japan | |
| Hiroshi Kanai (Institute of Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer), Seiji Matsuda (IHI Aerospace Co., Ltd.), Motoki Hinada (Institute of Space and Astronautical Science), Mitsuteru Kaneoka (CSP Japan Inc.) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Small satellites increasingly become popular in Japan in late years. Technology demonstration of standardized bus that takes an advantage of commercial components, whale observation satellite (WEOS) by Chiba Institute of Technology, and CANSAT and CUBESAT for educational purposes are representative examples. Small satellite also is an ideal solution for the mitigation of the risk of high and challenging technology. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, with expectation of small satellites to establish new market and promote commercialization in space, officially announced that they sponsor three-year development program of the low cost micro/small satellite from FY2008. Launch of small satellites still heavily relies on piggy-back ride on medium/large launch vehicles. Launcher alternatives and launch opportunities and windows have certain limitation and depend on primary payload. Flexible and responsive launch systems are craved in order to take full advantage of features of small satellites (e.g. affordable, short delivery period). Tradeoff study of launch platforms of land, sea and air was carried out in terms of performance, operation, ground systems and economics. Air launch was evaluated as most ideal launch system for small satellites because of its launch capability, minimum ground support, higher flexibility and mobility advantage, and affordable cost. Ideal launch vehicle, mother ship, airport/spaceport, and operation and control facility were carefully examined. Necessary technologies and laws and regulations were also identified. Modular launch vehicle that supports wide range of mission requirements from sub-orbital scientific observation and technology demonstrator to operational satellite launch was selected as a reference system for the study. Such vehicle would be developed by the combination of available rocket motors, including ones being available in near future. This paper summarizes results of an affordable small satellite launcher study. The team of USEF, IHI Aerospace and CSP Japan carried out the study under the contract awarded by The Mechanical Social Systems Foundation. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-1001: Just Add Sun: The Story of the 40th Flight of Pegasus | |
| Adam Lewis (Orbital Sciences Corporation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Eighteen years after its inception, the Pegasus launch vehicle marked its 40th flight in October 2008 by successfully launching the IBEX satellite for NASA. The mission not only marked a milestone of 40 flights, it also cemented Pegasus in the history of spaceflight as the most reliable and most flexible expendable small launch vehicle in the industry today. Operational responsive space has many definitions and clearly flexibility along with turn-around time comprise at least two of those facets. Using its’ mobile launch platform, a modified L1011 aircraft, Pegasus launched from Kwajalein in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and has proven once again that it is the most flexible orbital launch vehicle in history. Kwajalein marked the seventh different launch location for Pegasus. Check one. Upon arriving on Kwajalein, Pegasus proved its responsiveness by launching IBEX into a perfect insertion only seven days after landing on island. Check two. By placing the NASA satellite successfully into orbit, Pegasus once again demonstrated its’ reliability by increasing a string of success to twenty-six flights. Check three. Isn’t Pegasus already meeting a significant portion of the most difficult aspects of responsive space even as a NASA workhorse? Then what remains is to ask whether given its’ reliability, flexibility and responsiveness, can Pegasus transition from the role of NASA small expendable launch vehicle workhorse to the role of serving the U.S. military and the U.S. government for responsive space needs? Certainly one paradigm of responsive space includes the ability to rapidly and reliably place small satellites into space, whenever and wherever a conflict requires newly defined operations or intelligence. The current launch vehicle systems in the infant stages of development continue to use fixed launch platforms with an unproven reliability and an unproven cost model. If Pegasus could be de-scoped from NASA workhorse and the associated overhead, to U.S. military and government responsive launch vehicle with affordability, that paradigm shift, and associated decrease in contractual insight and oversight, would place Pegasus in the realm of the new responsive space small launch vehicle. What would remain would then be a weighing of the economy of a nascent industry supporting the development cost of new, unproven, fixed site small launch vehicles versus a proven, highly flexible, existing vehicle. This paper provides the story of the 40th flight of Pegasus. The story breaks down the “how to” of small, flexible, responsive access to space, using terms that will be repeatedly heard at this conference. But it also poses a broader, far reaching question: can Responsive Space provide a mechanism for transforming Pegasus from NASA workhorse into a U.S. military and government launch vehicle to meet the increasing needs of flexible, responsive, and yes, affordable access to space? | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-1002: Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion (SUSTAIN) | |
| John M. Jurist (Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences, UND), David C. Hook (Planehook Aviation Services), David Livingston (Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences, UND ) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Cheap, rapid orbital launch (Responsive Space) has been elusive. Three potential approaches, all with different policy and economic implications, are considered. The first, exemplified by Virgin Galactic’s SS-2, evolves current attempts at suborbital space tourism or human-tended science involving brief flights with apogees above 100 km into point to point suborbital transport and then to orbital transport. The second, exemplified by SpaceX’s Falcon series, evolves more traditional aerospace technology with improved management to drive down launch costs on the margin and then hopefully to the point where response space access is accomplished. The third, and in our opinion most viable short term approach, uses requirements addressing national security needs to accelerate development and to exploit currently existing technology or technology that is partially developed and demonstrated. We illustrate this approach by considering the Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion (SUSTAIN) requirement presented by the US Marine Corps. SUSTAIN specifies a capability to place a squad of 13 marines and field supplies anywhere in the world from the continental US within 2 hours. Potential solutions considered and rejected include: ? A DC-X like vertical take-off rocket-powered vehicle that decelerates and lands under rocket power and then returns under rocket power without refueling and refurbishing cannot be developed and fielded in a 5-10 year period. ? An aerospace plane would most likely require development for more than a decade and would also require a landing field near the target area. ? Placing and staffing a constellation of up to 12 space stations with re-entry vehicles is technically possible but economically implausible. Our inexpensive approach for the 5-10 year time frame with current technology is a capsule on a pressure-fed, liquid-fuelled, ablatively-cooled, composite 3 stage vertical take-off rocket-powered launch vehicle. The launch vehicle is a modified Microcosm Scorpius Exodus system. The capsule decelerates aerodynamically during re-entry, decelerates further with a parachute or parasail, and cushions the final impact with small solid-fuelled rockets. Extraction of individual team members could be accomplished by using Fulton Recovery Systems on them individually or by lifting the capsule containing the team to several thousand feet AGL with the capsule abort rocket system and then snagging it in midair with a cargo aircraft. The basic technology required for this approach has been demonstrated over the past ½ century. Most of the technology elements for the Scorpius Exodus have been demonstrated and even flown. Therefore, SUSTAIN could be implemented rapidly and inexpensively. The major developmental element appears to be the capsule. Major impediments to implementing SUSTAIN fall within the political, economic, and policy arenas. A side benefit of this approach to SUSTAIN is a simple, cheap, responsive space launch vehicle. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-1003: SpaceX Falcon 1: The First Privately-Developed Liquid Fuel Rocket to Achieve Earth Orbit | |
| Brian Bjelde (Space Exploration Technologies ), Hans Koenigsmann (Space Exploration Technologies ), Gwynne Shotwell (Space Exploration Technologies ) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: On September 28, 2008, SpaceX made history when its Falcon 1, designed and manufactured by SpaceX, became the first privately-developed liquid fuel rocket to orbit the Earth. This was the fourth flight of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle and it lifted off at 4:15 p.m. (PDT) / 23:15 (UTC) from the SpaceX launch site on Omelek Island at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the Central Pacific, about 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii. It achieved an elliptical orbit of 621 x 643 km, 9.3 degrees inclination, with full intended performance. The upper stage carried a 165 kg (364 lb) mass simulator, designed and built by SpaceX, into orbit. With this flight, SpaceX has successfully flight proven 100% of its subsystems including 1st stage ascent, stage separation, 2nd stage ignition, fairing separation, guidance and control accuracies, stage 2 engine shutdown and orbital insertion, payload separation signaling, and stage 2 engine restart capability. Furthermore, SpaceX was successful in demonstrating industry record breaking responsive operations. Including transportation, ground processing and licensing, Flight 4 occurred the month following the Flight 3 attempt on August 2, 2008. The successful flight of SpaceX’s Falcon 1 is both historically noteworthy and represents a major opportunity for the industry to finally have access to a low cost demonstrated launch capability. This paper will cover the vehicle performance achieved and describe in detail the responsive elements that have been successfully demonstrated. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-1004: Rapid Ascent Trajectory Planning and Closed-Loop Guidance for Responsive Launch | |
| Frank R. Chavez (Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate), Ping Lu (Iowa State University) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The Air Force’s needs for achieving operationally responsive launch to space requires far greater autonomy, flexibility, and capability of the launch vehicle guidance systems than currently exist. The driving motivation for this research is that the challenges for realizing responsive access to space lie not only in hardware and operations, but also equally in software and algorithms. Traditionally, launch guidance and control (G&C) software and parameters are designed for a specified mission, payload, and targeting condition. This is a time-consuming process, done well in advance of the mission. Until the technical challenges in update and design of G&C algorithms and software on a short notice, upon being given the target condition, are satisfactorily addressed, on-demand launch would not be possible even for a vehicle already on the launch pad. The objectives of this research are to develop rapid launch ascent trajectory optimization and planning capability and, eventually, strive to toward complete closed-loop ascent guidance through the atmosphere. A recently developed on-line trajectory planning algorithm will be employed in the development of the integrated closed-loop ascent guidance system concept. Extensive testing with well defined evaluation matrices is conducted to demonstrate the benefits of adaptive closed-loop ascent guidance. This paper provides description to fast and robust endo-atmospheric ascent planning and guidance algorithm. The algorithm is based a relaxation approach to solve the two-point-boundary-value problem arising from the necessary conditions of the optimal control problem. An analytical multiple-shooting method for rapid and reliable generation of the optimal exo-atmospheric ascent trajectory of a launch vehicle is presented next. The trajectory consists of multiple burns (stages) and optimal coast arc between two burns. The problem solution is in closed-form and quadratures. The two algorithms are then seamlessly integrated to generate end-to-end complete optimal ascent trajectory. The final product of combining all these techniques is a very reliable, effective and fast algorithm. Such an algorithm can be a valuable tool in rapid planning of launch missions and in on-board applications for closed-loop ascent guidance. A series of test cases for method presented above will be performed and results presented. The test cases are specifically chosen to allow comparisons among differing terminal modes and to emphasize desired characteristics of the optimized trajectories and consequences resulting from terminal mode constraint enforcement. Closed-loop simulations provide a more stringent check for the validity of the open loop solution determined by our algorithm. In closed-loop simulations, the optimization problem utilizing our algorithm is solved in every second (known as the guidance cycle), using the current condition as the initial condition. A new optimal ascent solution is generated from the vehicle's current state to the orbital insertion point. The thrust direction and throttle commands are from the optimal solution just found. If the closed-loop trajectory closely matches the open-loop solution, the validity of the algorithm is verified. Extensive Monte Carlo simulations are performed to test the performance of the algorithm in the presence of winds, vehicle modeling and atmospheric dispersions. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-1005: ALDEBARAN, A Launch Vehicle System Demonstrator | |
| Christophe Talbot (CNES — Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales), Eric Louaas (CNES — Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales), Maria del Pilar Gonzales Gotor (CNES — Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales), Alejandro Ruiz Merino (CNES — Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Aldebaran is the name chosen for a "system" demonstrator project which paves the way for one or more next-generation launch vehicle targets and is also specified to be able to realize operational launches. The proposed demonstrator comes at a time when it is planned to operate existing European launch vehicles (ARIANE 5, SOYUZ, VEGA) until around 2025, with no new generation launcher under development before 2015. The project is aiming at developing a flight demonstrator which will be a receptacle for new technologies, focusing on creativity and innovation. It would represent an intermediate step prior to the development of a new-generation launch vehicle. The demonstrator shall also be capable of carrying out launch missions for micro- satellites to serve a potential market niche not covered by existing launch vehicles in Europe, and with some responsive requirements. After describing quickly the Aldebaran project, the paper is focusing on a candidate based on an air launch platform using a fighter aircraft with a high flight path angle separation. The demonstrator represents the smallest and the most affordable demonstrator able to reach an orbit with a two stage configuration based on advanced solid propellant, hydrocarbon fuel upper stage, miniaturised avionics, and many other innovative sub-systems. A three-stage configuration is then derived to achieve a full operational capability (150 kg in SSO) with an additional first stage based on two solid rocket boosters and a “Trimaran” configuration attached on 3 points of the aircraft. The demonstrator will be developed in the frame of international co operations and involves, for current preliminary studies, three European countries, France, Germany and Spain. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-1006: Adapter Ring for Small Satellites on Responsive Launch Vehicles | |
| Joseph R. Maly (CSA Engineering ), Vann M. Stavast (CSA Engineering ) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: A secondary payload capability for small launch vehicles based on the ESPA ring is presented. The ‘small launch ESPA’ is a scaled version of the EELV Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA). This small-launch adapter ring features a 38.8-inch-diameter primary interface, and is sized for Minotaur IV, Falcon 1e, Taurus, and Delta II. Small launch ESPA mounts up to six low-profile small satellites on standard 8-inch or 15-inch-diameter interfaces. This ‘little ESPA’ is particularly suited for cubesats and the emerging satellite class between cubesats and nanosats. Launches on the Minotaur IV and Delta II platforms allow payloads in the size range between nanosats and ESPA-class spacecraft, i.e., up to 180 kg. The adapter is compatible for flight with an ORS-Sat-class primary spacecraft; ORS-Sat can be mounted on top of or inside the ring. Benefits to ORS include simultaneous launch of several small responsive payloads, or testing of new technologies on the launch of a responsive spacecraft mission. Adapter rings stored at the ORS depot would provide launch infrastructure for quick-turn missions. Launch load mitigation with SoftRide spacecraft vibration and shock isolation1 can be integrated from depot-stored components using a software tool currently under development. SoftRide on small launch ESPA will isolate mission success from uncertainties in individual payloads. The small launch ESPA design is based on the flight proven ESPA Ring, and costs for flight validation will be low with qualification by analysis/similarity or utilization of test facilities and existing capabilities at Kirtland Air Force Base. The paper describes launch stack configurations for several launch vehicles, including secondary payload volumes available based on fairing dynamic envelopes. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-1007: Sea-Launched TacSats for Responsive Space (STaRS) | |
| Lt. Col. Robert Carneal (US Air Force SMC/XRDP), RayMing Chang (US Air Force SMC/CDE) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The Responsive Space community has focused on Responsive Launch as an area of improvement that would help space become more responsive. Unfortunately, developing a Responsive Launch capability is fraught with difficulties. American launch facilities (i.e., Eastern Range, Western Range, Kwajalein, etc.) have numerous logistical and physical limitations that restrict U.S ability to quickly launch a satellite, including: restricted launch fans, prior easements, launch plumes, and safety concerns. This paper proposes a possible solution that avoids many of the difficulties associated with launch systems used today: a Sea-launched TacSats for Responsive Space (STaRS) system. A Sea-based TacSat launch capability would solve many of the problems associated with limited launch pads at fixed sites, including issues with “possible” launch pad availability due to competing program priorities as opposed to having a definite launch date. Of course, STaRS systems will need to deal with issues that land-based systems do not, such as ocean environments, transportation logistics, and security concerns. Sea-launched vehicles are a proven technology. The prime example of a highly effective sea-based launch system is United Launch Alliance’s Sea-Launch. Another example is the ICBM architecture which already exists with Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) aboard ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Russia has been launching satellites from submarines since at least 1994. For example, in 2006, the Russian Federation successfully launched an 80 kg Compass-2 satellite from a K-84 "Ekaterinburg” submarine. The least expensive option for a sea-borne STaRS platform would be to convert a used tanker or cargo ship. Command of a STaRS ship would likely be split between the Navy and the Air Force. Cost savings could be realized by utilizing a primarily civilian crew on the STaRS ship with joint Navy and Air Force command, similar to how the Military Sealift Command's Prepositioning Program is crewed. A more expensive option would be to convert and dedicate a SSBN submarine for STaRS missions. STaRS ships/subs could be pre-positioned near the equator or incorporated into a Navy fleet. For larger payloads, the U.S. can develop systems similar to Sea Launch. A STaRS platform will likely be able to carry at least several launch vehicles on standby, if not several dozen. A STaRS platform will therefore likely have the capacity to quickly launch a constellation of TacSats which would provide more flexibility and responsiveness. The ability to quickly replenish constellations would help deter the use of ASATs by adversaries. In addition, STaRS could launch a Payload Assist Module (PAM) in order to insert a payload beyond LEO. A STaRS system has the potential to avoid many of the problems associated with land-based launch and provide a real responsive launch capability. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-2003: A Concept of Operations for Satellite Carriers (“SatCarriers”) | |
| RayMing Chang (United States Air Force — SMC/CDE) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Responsive Space is too slow. Today, we cannot build a satellite overnight and we cannot launch a satellite at a moment’s notice. We can avoid many of the latencies associated with satellite manufacture and launch with the Satellite Carrier (“SatCarrier”). The basic function of the SatCarrier system will be to provide on-orbit storage of tactical satellites (“TacSats”). SatCarriers will loiter in Earth orbits carrying squadrons of TacSats. The TacSats resident on these SatCarriers will be ready to deploy on demand. SatCarrier capabilities will fall between Tier 1 and Tier 2 as defined by the Operationally Responsive Space Plan that was submitted by the Department of Defense to Congress on 20 Apr 2007. In fact, we could characterize SatCarriers as Tier-1.1 assets that are on-orbit yet held in ready reserve. This Concept of Operations (“CONOPS”) discusses the SatCarrier mission, system drivers, and system constraints. It proposes an implementation concept based upon the EELV Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) ring with ESPA Ring configurations ranging from 4 to 18 satellites. It also discusses other possible SatCarrier implementations. This CONOPS then discusses mission planning considerations and tradeoffs of particular orbits. In particular, this CONOPS discusses important delta-V considerations for SatCarrier mission planning. A SatCarrier will carry a squadron of identical TacSats or a mixed squadron of TacSats with different payloads (a squadron would contain somewhere between 4-20 satellites). Mission planners would have the flexibility to decide whether users in a SatCarrier’s Area of Responsibility (AOR) will require payloads that facilitate communications, battle-space characterization, space situational awareness, or a mix. TacSats stored on SatCarriers will either be dormant or be maintained on standby power. In either case, the SatCarrier will be able to power up resident TacSats as needed. TacSats that are stored on SatCarriers will be thoroughly tested prior to launch and should be operational when turned on, but planners will likely plan for capability redundancy in the squadron to mitigate infant mortality risk. SatCarrier designers could reduce infant mortality through shielding and “exercising” stored TacSats. SatCarriers will likely be developed in blocks, much like GPS. When a block of SatCarriers reach half-life, the TacSats it carries could be deployed in order to get some use out of the satellites. The services of satellites deployed at half-life could be used as overflow for military/government missions or resold to civil space. A new improved block would then be deployed to replace the previous block. A SatCarrier could also serve as a ready supply of on-orbit spares that retain more of their service life because the stored spares would rely on the SatCarrier for stationkeeping and power. SatCarriers will give the United States truly responsive space capabilities. The SatCarrier concept is realizable in the near-term. We should begin investing in and developing the SatCarrier concept now. | |
| |