Military Spaceplane (MSP) and Reusable Launch Vehicle Study Brig Gen Anarde HQ AFSPC/XP...

Military Spaceplane (MSP) and Reusable Launch

Vehicle Study

Brig Gen AnardeHQ AFSPC/XP

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT 204/19/23

Purpose

• Review actions to date• Assess Reusable Launch Vehicles

• Operational Utility

• Science and Technology Maturity

• Assess X-33 and X-37 applicability

• Recommend position • AF role in X-33 and X-37 programs

• Identify other options

• Establish glide slope for AF Reusable Launch Vehicle way ahead


Bottom Line

• Study assessments reveal substantial risks and mitigations associated with continuing with the X-33 and X-37 programs

• No consensus (although of the two programs, the X-33 seems least likely to offer an achievable, straight forward follow-on concept leading to an operational vehicle) . . . More work needed on an AF roadmap, systems concepts development, and systems engineering trades

• Study highly recommends much closer NASA-AF partnership on SLI and reusable technologies

• Sentiment that the systems might help evolution towards military space plane . . . But at what cost?

• Any recommendation to proceed would be heavily influenced by what we could learn from operating these systems. These lessons learned could enhance the evolution of integrated aerospace operations, systems development, and requirements refinement


What have we learned?

• Premise: Reusable vehicles offer potential warfighting value• Two Stage to Orbit -- the best alternative• Mix of Expendable and Reusable Vehicles

• Suite of vehicles to cover the range of ops and missions • Continued partnership with NASA imperative• Gaps in capability:

• Operations• Technology• Performance

• Enablers• Propulsion maturity• Thermal Protection Systems• Integrated Vehicle Health Management• Ops Concepts and Requirements Definition


USAF: Leading the Transformation

Rapid Aerospace Dominance

The Conceptual

Framework

for Employing

Aerospace Power

in Future

Joint Warfighting

GoalCapabilities

Str

ateg

ic P

lan

Force Structure

Organizations

AEF PRIMEAEF PRIME

AEFsAEFs

EAF MOBILITYEAF MOBILITY

EAF FOUNDATIONEAF FOUNDATION


Space Enablers & WarriorsSpace Enablers & Warriors

Building on

Space’s Vigilance Legacy

Building on

Space’s Vigilance Legacy

Providing Direct

Combat Capabilities to

Promote Peace & Stability;

Fight & Win

SpaceSpace

Vigilance, Reach, & PowerVigilance, Reach, & Power

SpaceSpace

Vigilance, Reach, & PowerVigilance, Reach, & Power

Space Forces


Theater Impact

Low Earth Orbit

Rapid Force Reconstitution

Space ISR enhancement

Space Superiority (Offensive and Defensive)

z

Tac/ Recce & SEAD

Precision Strike

High Earth Orbit

Assets Employed• 3 SOV with ISR 3 Sorties• 8 CAV per SOV 16 Sorties• 1 SMV per SOV 2 Sorties• 1 EO sensor / SMV 3 Sorties• 8 Microsat / SMV

•8 CAV on Airfield•2 CAV on each Chokepoint•1 Microsat on each key satellite

•0-8 Sorties for ISR •0-2 Sorties for Space Superiority


Objectives of Relevant Flight Regimes

X-37: Demonstrates limited set of Re-Entry

Environment Dynamics

- Heating and deceleration conditions from orbit to landing

- Opportunity to develop refurbishment protocols

X-33:Demonstrates Launch Environment Dynamics - Liftoff to Mach 11 (need Mach 15+) - Opportunity to develop operational processes

These demonstrators fill only small parts of the flight profiles required to field and operate military space plane.


Evolution to Military Space Plane

Incremental Evolution

Systems/Capabilities

Prototypes

Demonstrators

Concepts

Payload Developments -Sensors -- Hyperspectral -- Imaging -- Radar -- MASINT -- SIGINT -- Other

- Weapons and Vehicles -- CAV -- Precision Munitions -- EW -- Microsat

Operations Considerations -- Overland Launch -- Integrated ISR -- Refurbishment -- Rapid Payload Integration -- Rapid On-orbit Checkout -- Standard Interfaces -- Orbital Operations Flexibility

S&T Assessment

• What We Did• Assessed technology state-of-the-art, AF S&T, NASA SLI and

value of baselined X-33/X-37 against AFSPC SOV desired capabilities

• Results• Current investment in AF S&T, NASA SLI and/or X-33/X-37

will not advance SOV enabling technologies to TRL 6 (Demo) – Still Large Tech Gap -- Needs Significant S&T Investment

• X-33 and X-37 provide only limited advances in some technologies enabling AFSPC capabilities but would help establish tech needs

• Will Require Additional Flight Demonstrator Prior To EMD

RL

V E

NA

BL

ING

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

AR

EA

S

= TRL 6

= TRL 3 to 5

= TRL LESS THAN 3

FY10

AF & NASA Technology Programs Value Added to SOV

SOV Tech-MATTRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6TRL 6

Technology Gap

• State-Of-The-Art (SOTA) = Shuttle + ELV + EELV• AF S&T = Current AFRL R&D Efforts for SOV• NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI) Narrows Technology Gap for SOV • Limited Tech Value Of X-33/X-37, Still Requires S&T + Flight Demo

SOTA AF S&T SLISystems Engineering/Arch TRL = 2 TRL = 2 TRL = 4Airframe - Tanks TRL = 2 TRL = 3 TRL = 4Airframe - TPS TRL = 2 TRL = 3 TRL = 3Airframe - Structures TRL = 4 TRL = 5 TRL = 5Airframe - AeroT-dynamics TRL = 2 TRL = 3 TRL = 4Subsystem - Avionics TRL = 2 TRL = 2 TRL = 4Subsystem - Power TRL = 1 TRL = 3 TRL = 3Subsystem - Actuators TRL = 3 TRL = 3 TRL = 5Operations - Ground Infrastructure TRL = 1 TRL = 2 TRL = 2Operations - Checkout & Control TRL = 1 TRL = 3 TRL = 4Operations - Separation Systems TRL = 1 TRL = 1 TRL = 3Operations - Ground/Flt Interface TRL = 1 TRL = 1 TRL = 3Operations - Fluid Transfer TRL = 2 TRL = 2 TRL = 3IVHM TRL = 1 TRL = 3 TRL = 3Propulsion - Main Engine TRL = 2 TRL = 2 TRL = 3Propulsion - Feedlines and Ducts TRL = 2 TRL = 3 TRL = 4Propulsion - Auxillary Engines TRL = 2 TRL = 2 TRL = 5Flight Mechanics - Analysis Tech. TRL = 1 TRL = 4 TRL = 6Flight Mechanics - GN&C TRL = 2 TRL = 2 TRL = 3

+

X-37

TRL = 5

TRL = 5TRL = 5

TRL = 4

TRL = 4

X-33

TRL = 4

TRL = 5TRL = 5

TRL = 5TRL = 4TRL = 4

TRL = 5

TRL = 4

or

$545MFY02-07

$766M*FY01-03

$575MFY02-06

$599MFY02-06

Ad

dit

ion

al S

&T

/ F

lig

ht

Dem

o

+

*SLI figure does not include$4.5B additional NASA funds

Charter and Tasks

• Perform an independent assessment of the X-33 and X-37 projects• Review programmatic issues

• Performance to date• Program management and systems engineering processes • Proposed team’s ability to execute program

• Assess technical risks and value of projects• As an MSP demonstrator• For a specific follow-on program• For unique USAF interest

• Assess cost, status, and schedule

Charter does not include making recommendations for USAF funding levels or participation

X-33 Program Assessment

Programmatics:

Estimate to LM Aero Complete $418M $575M

First Flight: 12/05 (success oriented schedule likely to slip)Program cancelled, team dispersed

Value as a Demonstrator• Autonomous flight control• Metallic TPS (will only be tested to Mach 11)• Lifting body aerodynamics & aerospike engine• Operable ground &flight operations

High Technical Risk • Aluminum LH2 tank integration • Engine performance and TVC issues• Software integration• Metallic TPS: Joint sealing under dynamic, thermal, and acoustic flight environment

Program Plan• Complete 1 demonstration vehicle• 7 Flights• Max. Velocity: Mach 8-11• Launch site complete

AF study findings are in agreement with NASA conclusions

X-37 Program Assessment

Programmatics:

Estimate to Boeing Aero Complete $462M $599M

First Flight: 12/05 $10M remaining in CA funds$4M per month current spend rate

Value as a Demonstrator• Advanced composites & modular construction• Advanced TPS (tested over complete reentry domain)• Autonomous guidance • H202 propulsion experience• Limited experience with SMV ops

High Technical Risk • Weight growth (7000 lb. limit) • Airframe production problems• Producibility of C/SiC structures• Li-ion battery development• Propulsion, valves, tank and materials

Program Plan• First vehicle used for Approach/ Landing Test Vehicle (ATLV)• Second vehicle to be developed as Orbital Vehicle• Two flight tests planned

• Launch on Delta IV: ($100M each)

AF study findings are in agreement with NASA conclusions

X-Vehicle Summary

• X-Programs are inherently high risk• X-33 & X-37 have made significant contributions

toward understanding achievable vehicle performance, cost, and integration issues• will improve system engineering tools and databases

• completion of programs would permit capture of vehicle integration and operations data

• Value as technology demonstrators limited to a subset of necessary technologies

• Ground test alone are not sufficient to verify USAF requirements for operability and responsiveness • additional flight test activities are needed


Criteria for Analysis

• Technology push

• Science and Technology requirements definition

• Developmental Concepts refinement

• Trade space identification

• Operational Expertise Evolution• Ground Ops• Flight Ops• Payload Experience• Recovery and Reconstitution

• Ability to integrate into Rapid Aerospace Dominance• Global Strike Task Force• Future Strike


Assessment of Options

• No contingent capability• Demonstrator onlyComments

++Overall Assessment

++Integrated Aerospace Ops

++++Operational Utility

+++Trade Space Potential

--Cost Risk

++S&T Req Definition

++Technology Push

X-37X-33Major Analysis Area

--Technical Risk

- *-Schedule Risk

Comments:

X-33:• Slight to marginal utility• Current issues:

• Software development• Thrust Vector Control

Positive advances:• Metallic TPS• Launch base ops• Aerospike Engine flight• Recovery and Reconstitution ops

X-37:• Slight to marginal utility• Issues:

• Launch cost• Few flights

• Positive advances:• Reentry profile data• Recovery and Reconstitution operations

* NASA FY06 Decision for SLI


Broad Approach Required, If Decision to Proceed

• Requirements Definition• Concepts, Systems Engineering, S&T Prioritization• National Roadmap for Reusables • Begin new studies to define concepts with direct military utility

• Organizational• Develop integrated organization to address Military Space Plane• Establish Program Element• Start Pre-SPO

• Managerial• Develop cooperative agreements between ACC, ASC, AFRL, SMC,

AFSPC and NASA to manage requirements and program development• Cooperative Planning effort with NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center

• Operations • Doctrine Development and Tactics Evolution• Wargaming and Modeling & Simulation Analysis• Partner for Future Strike applications with ACC


Summary

• The future of AF space requires establishing superiority in the space medium as warfighters• Space Superiority • Global Precision Strike Force Enablers and Packages

• Technology demonstrators historically have provided significant insight into viable mission suites and operational missions for future military operations

• Begin development to pursue integrated flight demonstrations and qualify sensors/payloads


Partnership Council Way Ahead

• NASA and AF need to harmonize space technology investments• AFRL Responsive Reusable Access to Space effort (R2SPACE)• NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI)• SMC Advanced Space Lift II Study (ASL II)

• National team to work on roadmap for RLV • Incorporate SLI initiatives and funding• Review progress made at all future AFSPC/NASA/NRO

Partnership Council meetings

• AFSPC briefing for SecAF and CSAF providing study results on X-33 and X-37

Council Conclusions:•Do not pursue X-33 program•Approve further study of X-37 as we develop RLV roadmap

Military Spaceplane (MSP) and Reusable Launch Vehicle Study Brig Gen Anarde HQ AFSPC/XP...

Documents

Transcript of Military Spaceplane (MSP) and Reusable Launch Vehicle Study Brig Gen Anarde HQ AFSPC/XP...