requirements and operations team industry day briefing 17 january, 2002

Requirements and Operations Team

Industry Day Briefing

17 January, 2002

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-2

Outline

Team Products

Requirements analysis and process

CONOPS development

Joint requirements matrix

Design reference missions

Comparison of AF and NASA requirements

Questions relevant to Requirements/Ops

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-3

Team Products

Mission Needs Document: A document describing the high-level technical and mission needs of the developed system

Level I Requirements Document: Quantify, compare, and combine, to the extent possible, traceable AF and NASA requirements

Concept of Operations Document: A description of how the prototype system is to be operated

Design Reference Missions: A technical description of the missions used as reference in the design of the system

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-4

Requirements Analysis

Analysis Addressed Five Key Questions:

Question 1. What is the impact of an RLV system towards meeting

present or projected NASA/AF requirements?

Question 2. If impact warrants an RLV system, when is it needed?

Question 3. What characteristics would an RLV system need to meet

NASA/AF mission requirements?

Question 4. How do the characteristics of an AF system compare to

those of a NASA system?

Question 5. What is the integrated set of requirements?

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-5

Strategic Visions

Mission Area Plans

Sub-Mission areas

Identify Mission Attributes (e.g.

responsiveness, safety)

Map attributes to requirements in each

sub-mission area

Do

wn

war

d T

race

Req

uir

emen

ts

Current Missions (“to be”)

Future Missions/ Concepts

(“could be”)

Quantify Impact on Requirements, Need

Dates, Operations

Determine Range in Characteristics

Across Sub-mission Areas

Reconcile NASA/AF Requirements to

Develop an Integrated System

Review

and

V

alidate

Review

Past S

tud

ies

Questions 1 & 2

Question 3

Questions 4 & 5

Requirements Process

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-6

CONOPS Development

Consolidates RLV prototype missions, operations, security, safety, and logistics

AF missions stressors: Force Applications: Global Strike Force Enhancement: Responsive Tactical Intelligence, Surveillance, and

Reconnaissance (ISR) Space Control: Space Superiority Space Support: Satellite Constellation Reconstitution. Refueling and Surge

NASA Missions Alternate Access to International Space Station Demonstrate technologies or objectives for follow-on systems

2nd Draft complete - will evolve as required

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-7

IOC IOC Evolved EvolvedCritical Parameter Threshold Objective Threshold Objective

1 First Launch YearUSAF TBD TBDNASA 2014 2012 2030 2025

2 Sortie Capacity - Sustained

USAF 10 sorties in 2 wks 20 sorties in 2 wks

NASA TBD TBD TBD TBD3 Sortie Capacity - Surge

USAF 150 CAVs in 2-3 days

150 CAVs in 2-3 days

NASA No NASA reqt No NASA reqt No NASA reqt No NASA reqt

4 Mission Planning Time - crewed, days

USAF No AF Reqt No AF ReqtNASA 30 14 7 1

5 Mission Planning Time - uncrewed, days

USAF 1 0.5NASA TBD TBD 7 1

6 Maximum Payload On-Orbit Duration, days

USAF Days-Years Days-YearsNASA 20 30 TBD TBD

7 CrewUSAF No AF Reqt No AF ReqtNASA Y (2+3) Y (2+3) Y Y

Requirements MatrixGeneral Mission

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-8


8 Rendezvous Capable

USAF Y Y

NASA Y Y Y Y9 Maximum Orbital Inclination, deg

USAF 98 98NASA 57 (EOS) 98 98 98

10 Maximum Mission Orbital Altitude, nmi, circular

USAF 100 100

NASA 250 250 TBD TBD

11 On Orbit ĘV (includes de-orbit), fps

USAF Deorbit + retrieval only

Deorbit + retrieval only

NASA Pressurized cargo to ISS

Pressurized cargo to ISS

TBD TBD

12 Max Duration (on-orbit), Orbiter

USAF 2-3 days + retrieval 2-3 days + retrieval

NASA 10 days 15 days TBD TBD

Requirements Matrix General Mission (cont’d)

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-9


13 Launch Site

USAF ETR, VAFB, +1 inland USAFB

CONUS AFB

NASA KSC No NASA rqmt CONUS AFB Any US A/P14 Nominal Landing Site

USAF ETR, VAFB, +1 inland USAFB

CONUS AFB

NASA KSC, EAFB No NASA rqmt CONUS AFB Any US A/P15 Intact Abort Capability (OEI)

USAF ATO ATONASA ATO ATO ATO ATO

16 Flight Ops Command & Control Site

USAF Vehicle Imposes No Constraint

Vehicle Imposes No Constraint

NASA Vehicle Imposes No Constraint




Requirements MatrixSites

ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-10


17 Design Payload Mass, lbm (28.5 deg., 100 nmi)

USAF 15000 of weapons + TBD ASE

15000 of weapons + TBD ASE

NASACTV to ISS (note

B)CTV to ISS (note

B) 20000 20000

18 Nominal De-Orbit Mass, lbmUSAF Full Payload Full PayloadNASA Full Payload Full Payload Full Payload Full Payload

19 Physical Payload Envelope, ft (shrouded)

USAF TBD TBD

NASA TBD TBD TBD TBD

Requirements MatrixPayloads



20 Crew SurvivabilityUSAF N/A N/ANASA TBD 1/10000 1/ 1,000,000 1/ 1,000,000

21 Vehicle Mission Reliability

USAF 1:750 1:1000NASA 1:750 1:1000 TBD TBD

Requirements MatrixFlight Safety/Reliability



22 Capable of 12-Month Operations

USAF Cold-Hot, Wet, Windy

Cold-Hot, Wet, Windy

NASA TBD TBD Cold-Hot, Wet Cold-Hot, Wet

23 Mission Turnaround Time-Sustained, days

USAF Architecturally derived

Architecturally derived



NASAArchitecturally

derivedArchitecturally



derived

24 Mission Turnaround Time-Surge, days

USAF Architecturally derived




NASAArchitecturally




derived25 Callup Time - Sustained, days

USAF 1 0.5NASA No NASA reqt No NASA reqt No NASA reqt No NASA reqt

26 Callup Time - Crew RescueUSAF No AF Reqt No AF ReqtNASA 2 days 2 days 1 day 1 day

Requirements MatrixOperability


1. Low Earth Orbit Payload DeliveryDemonstrate the capability of the prototype RLV architecture to deliver a useful payload to a desired orbit.

2. Deliver Microsats and Perform Operational Maneuver DemonstrationsDemonstrate the capability to dispense and deploy microsats in desired orbital locations using on-orbit DV capability.

3. Rendezvous, Proximity Operations,and Maneuver DemonstrationsDemonstrate the capability of the prototype RLV architecture to perform rendezvous, station-keeping,and proximity operations.

4. Demonstrate Technologies or Objectives for Follow-on SystemsProvide relevant environments for the testing and/or demonstration of developmental technologies relevant to the 2nd Generation RLV and other launch vehicle and space systems.

5. LEO Tactical Orbital Operations Platform DemonstrationsDemonstrate the delivery and operation of a tactical orbital operations platform to low earth orbit.

6. Alternate Access to International Space StationDemonstrate the capabilities required to provide an alternative method of delivering supplies and equipment to the International Space Station (ISS).

7. Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) Strike Package DemonstrationsDemonstrate the delivery and deployment of a Common Aero Vehicle strike package to low earth orbit.

8. Demonstrate Characteristics for Follow-on Reliability RequirementsDemonstrate ground, flight and mission operations with the prototype RLV architecture. to provide traceability to Air Force and NASA reliability goals and objectives.

9. Demonstrate Reductions in Launch Cost per Pound for Routine SpaceliftDemonstrate ground, flight and mission operations with the prototype RLV architecture. to provide traceability to Air Force and NASA cost goals and objectives.

10. Operability DemonstrationsDemonstrate with the prototype RLV architecture the attributes to address the cost and affordability goals of the 2nd Generation RLV.

11. International Space Station Routine Resupply Demonstrate the capability with the prototype RLV architecture to meet the mission requirements of routine resupply missions to the ISS.

Prototype RLV Design Reference Mission Summary


Comparison of AF and NASA Requirements

Concurrence in many areas: Reliability; De-orbit mass; Orbits;

Abort Scenarios

NASA and AF requirements do not currently converge in

certain areas: Weight delivered to orbit:

Payload: 15 - 25 K lbs Crewed: 45+ K lbs

Responsiveness: AF < 12 hours to 2 days; NASA weeks On-orbit capability: Duration and maneuverability substantially higher for NASA

(ISS driven) Sortie Rate: AF driven by future conflict scenario - could be high; NASA low Human rating: AF no requirement; NASA needed in FY12 system Weather: The AF has a requirement to operate in stronger winds, more

precipitation and a wider range of temperatures. Launch / Landing: AF has a requirement to operate from inland CONUS AFB.


Questions For IndustryRequirements/Ops

1. What are the technology "long poles" to enable responsive space access (i.e., capable of achieving aircraft levels of cost, reliability and safety) over the next 25 years (Including vehicle, propulsion, ground infrastructure, operations, payloads, sensors, etc.)? Given your knowledge of currently funded NASA and Air Force programs, what would be your recommended technology roadmap? What changes and/or additional long-term technology investments should begin within the next seven years?

2. What RLV technologies does your company feel are state-of-the-art and ready for full-scale development today relative to your understanding of NASA and Air Force RLV requirements?

4. What is the earliest your company believes it is feasible to field a next generation RLV system(s) capable of meeting NASA and Air Force requirements? Please elaborate on your rationale and associated milestones. What would be the top 10 issues going into full-scale (or engineering and manufacturing) development of the next RLV (e.g., funding, technology maturity, immature requirements, joint program complexity, etc.)?


Questions For IndustryRequirements/Ops (cont’d)

6. What are the drivers for meeting operability needs? What is the value of early flight demonstrations using state-of-the-art systems (existing engines, TUFI TPS, SOA avionics, electric valve actuators, etc.) for demonstrating operability? What relationship (if any) exists between the size of the launch vehicle and operability? Describe/define observed interactions between safety and operability needs

9. Given your knowledge of NASA and Air Force requirements, what degree of commonality does your company believe is possible between NASA and Air Force RLV architectures and associated elements (including ground and flight systems)? Does your company see commonality between the NASA/AF needs and mission requirements and a commercial opportunity? Do you believe a modular RLV concept is possible whereby we support a near term demonstrator in the 15-25K payload class, and that booster in turn is a modular component of a larger RLV?

requirements and operations team industry day briefing 17 january, 2002

Documents

nasa system

requirements document

af system

nasaaf mission requirements

rlv system

projected nasaaf requirements

integrated set of requirements

traceable af