Military Spaceplane (MSP)

goodyearmiaowΜηχανική

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

73 εμφανίσεις

Military Spaceplane (MSP)
and Reusable Launch Vehicle
Study

Brig Gen Anarde

HQ AFSPC/XP

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

2

11/18/2013

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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

3

11/18/2013

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


AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

4

11/18/2013

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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

5

11/18/2013

USAF: Leading the Transformation

Rapid Aerospace Dominance

The Conceptual

Framework

for Employing

Aerospace Power

in Future

Joint Warfighting


Goal

Capabilities

Strategic

Plan


Force Structure


Organizations

AEF PRIME

AEFs

EAF MOBILITY

EAF FOUNDATION

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

6

11/18/2013

Space Enablers & Warriors

Building on

Space’s Vigilance Legacy

Providing Direct

Combat Capabilities to

Promote Peace & Stability;
Fight & Win

Space


Vigilance, Reach, & Power


Space Forces

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

7

11/18/2013

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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

8

11/18/2013

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.

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

9

11/18/2013

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

RLV ENABLING TECHNOLOGY AREAS

= TRL 6

= TRL 3 to 5

= TRL LESS THAN 3

FY10

AF & NASA Technology Programs

Value Added to SOV

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

X-37
TRL = 5
TRL = 5
TRL = 5
TRL = 4
TRL = 4
X-33
TRL = 4
TRL = 5
TRL = 5
TRL = 5
TRL = 4
TRL = 4
TRL = 5
TRL = 4
or

$545M

FY02
-
07

$766M
*

FY01
-
03

$575M

FY02
-
06

$599M

FY02
-
06

+

*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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

16

11/18/2013

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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

17

11/18/2013

Assessment of Options



No contingent capability



Demonstrator only

Comments

+

+

Overall Assessment

+

+

Integrated Aerospace Ops

++

++

Operational Utility

++

+

Trade Space Potential

-

-

Cost Risk

+

+

S&T Req Definition

+

+

Technology Push


X
-
37

X
-
33

Major 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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

18

11/18/2013

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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

19

11/18/2013

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

AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT

20

11/18/2013

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