Toward Leaner Launchers

Home , Advanced Launch System, Titan IV

US space launches take too long and cost too much. USAF is working with NASA and industry to fix the problem. Toward Leaner Launchers

By Suzann Chapman, Associate Editor

I N 1982, the US had ninety percent II of the world's space-launch market, but by 1992 that figure had dropped to thirty percent as the Euro- pean Space Agency's Arianespace began to take hold in the global market- place. Other countries also offered "economy" launches of their own. As part of the drive to Cost and efficiency were the driv- improve space-launch ing factors in this realignment. Ariane- operations. USAF and industry have reduced space provided launches at far lower time on the pad for cost and with a reduced cycle time medium-lift boosters, and fewer employees. The US launch such as this Atlas II, industry, with origins in 1950s-era launched from Cape intercontinental ballistic missile sys- Canaveral AS, Fla., in tems, featured long delays and man- December 1995. power-intensive operations, leading to high cost and unhappy customers. The Defense Department's 1994 Space-Launch Modernization Plan criticized the delays and lack of re- sponsiveness, noting the impact on DoD and commercial customers. That same year, Air Force Secretary Sheila E. Widnall announced a drive for more routine and affordable space- launch operations. The effort seems to be paying off for the Air Force. For one thing, USAF and the aerospace industry have managed to drive down the costs and cut the processing times on AIR FORCE Magazine/July 1996 73 today's launch systems. Some cycle Launcher Processing Times (Days) times have been slashed by more than fifty percent. In addition, they are optimistic From receipt Time on pad about the success of the latest effort to produce a new expendable launch vehicle (ELV), saying that the pro- 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 gram will pay for itself by 2010. Moreover, they said that the product 1989-92 30 /40 of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program will help 1993-96 45 / 25 revive the US commercial launch business. 1990-94 I The Defense Department expects 2 / 87 that the EELV program will mark 1995-96 I the first serious modernization of 2 / 42 the nation' s launch vehicles and lead to reduced costs. However, until the 1988-94 60 / 90 EELV medium- and heavy-lift versions come on line, the Air Force 1995-96 75 / 39 must continue to use its older ICBM- based booster force. 1989-95 116 / 108

Improving Medium, Heavy Lift 1996 37 / 128 The Air Force and industry are, in at CCAS fact, streamlining and improving 1989-95 134 / 155 operation of today' s fleet, said Col. Tommy Brazie, head of the Space 1996 0 / 155 and Missile Systems Center' s Launch at VAFB Programs System Program Office (SPO). He said that SMSC is "driv- ing with our [Air Force] Space Com- mand partners to normalize [launch] launch arena. Likewise, DoD' s At- only the 155 needed on the pad. Colo- operations." las Reliability Enhancement Program nel Brazie noted that the difference in The emphasis has been on reduc- has produced valuable advances that processing times between the two ing time on the pad for the USAF have been transferred to the com- facilities is primarily a result of medium-lift boosters—Delta II, Ti- mercial sector. Vandenberg' s use of a pad originally tan II, and Atlas II. The Air Force The Titan IV is the nation' s only designed to launch space shuttles. has improved efficiency and reduced heavy-lift ELV. It bucks the general For the Titan IV, even more than cost by conducting more of its ve- proposition that the less time on the for medium-lift vehicles, process- hicle processing at the contractor pad the better. Colonel Brazie said ing times vary greatly depending on plant and launch facility before plac- that performing tests off the pad and the complexity of the payload or the ing the booster on the pad—so-called then repeating the same tests on the particular satellite being launched. "clean vehicle" processing. pad was neither necessary nor cost- The fact that current ELVs are This change is illustrated in the effective. "We chose to eliminate tailored to meet specific payload re- chart above right. Time on the pad the off-pad testing instead of on-pad quirements, rather than employing a for Delta II boosters has dropped from [testing], so we could test the ve- standard payload interface, adds to forty days in 1989 to twenty-five in hicle in the stacked and ready-to-go cost and creates processing delays. 1993. In 1988, Titan II processing configuration," he said. Maj. Gen. David L. Vesely, com- took 150 days—sixty at the facility Titan IV has different processing mander of Air Force Space Com- and ninety on the pad. That total has requirements, which depend on its mand's 14th Air Force, oversees been cut by thirty-six days. Atlas II launch location—Cape Canaveral launch operations on both coasts. has shown even greater improvements, AS, Fla., or Vandenberg AFB, Calif. He likened the current process to shaving forty-five days from its over- (See chart above.) changing the engines on a cargo all processing time, all from on-pad Historically, preparation for Ti- aircraft each time it' s loaded or un- time. Colonel Brazie projects that on- tan IV launches at the Cape took an loaded. The General noted that, with pad processing for Atlas II will fall average of 224 days-116 at the fa- the new EELV, satellites should have by another seven days this year. cility and 108 on the pad. Now, pro- a standard interface with the booster, The Colonel noted that other effi- cessing takes 165 days, a reduction "like putting [cargo] pallets on an ciencies and savings have come from of 26.3 percent in overall cycle time. airlifter." the synergy among DoD, NASA, and At Vandenberg, processing histori- Some standardization for payloads industry. The Atlas and Delta pro- cally has averaged 289 days, with is already in the works for the latest grams in particular have benefited 155 spent on the pad. Today, that version of the Titan heavy-lift boost- from advances in the commercial time has been cut 134 days, down to er. The Titan IVB will employ mis-

74 AIR FORCE Magazine/ July 1996 sion-unique kits, providing a stan- Recent Launches dard interface for payloads to permit launch-site processing. The configuration will be the same DoD NASA Commercial as for the Titan IVA from the bottom of the rocket to the top of the pay- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 load interface skirt. From there up, the Titan IVB will be able to be 1991 customized on the pad. "Should we have to swap payloads, 1992 there is reduced schedule impact— we save three months and have re- 1993 duced cost—about $5 million per vehicle," said Colonel Brazie. 1994 He said that other improvements 1995 to the B model include "heroic" measures, such as changing the en- 1991 tire electrical system on the booster core. The new system, which is sim- 1992 pler and more easily checked out, 1993 uses up-to-date commercial parts and should "drastically reduce process- 1994 ing times." A new ground system also uses commercial software and 1995 hardware instead of the "hodge- 1991 podge" system of the A model. The Colonel said the new ground system 1992 provides better data earlier, adding that it is much easier and less expen- 1993 sive to maintain. The Titan IVB will have twenty- 1994 five percent increased performance 1995 from its upgraded solid rocket motors. The new SRMs will feature three 1991 segments instead of the current seven- segment version and will be checked 1992 out before they are mated to the core, 1993 not on the pad. USAF plans to launch the first 1994 Titan IVB from Cape Canaveral in Fiscal 1997 and from Vandenberg in 1995 Fiscal 1999. Colonel Brazie said the Air Force and Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for Titan IV, continue to seek commercial access to Atlas and Delta vamp the space-launch scheduling further improvements. Telemetry and launchpads on a "noninterference" process, to establish quarterly launch data lines now run from the launch basis. reviews, and to strictly adhere to facility to Denver. The technicians Traditionally, military launches have launch windows. can work from home, saving travel outnumbered commercial launches. In "There's no quick fix, but we're costs and allowing them to be more 1994, the split changed to fifty-fifty, seeing results with our standardiza- productive if weather delays occur, and in 1995, commercial launches sur- tion efforts," he said. he continued. passed military launches. The number Another streamlining move was of commercial and civil launches is creation of Colonel Brazie' s launch- New SPO, New Thinking projected to exceed the number of program SPO. The new SPO brings In 1995, the Air Force began a military launches for the next few years. current launch vehicles under one concerted effort to reduce the cost of The Air Force has also been up- management. The Air Force expects spacelift. Secretary Widnall said the grading its launch facility infrastruc- the new launch SPO to reduce over- Air Force has "officially ended the ture under the Range Standardization head costs and foster synergy among study phase of improving our space- and Automation program. AFSPC has launch programs. launch situation, and we're aggres- invested heavily and plans to con- Colonel Brazie said he plans to sively pursuing the action phase." tinue to do so for a few more years. cut the size of the program office by In addition to simplifying its proce- Interim standardization measures, forty percent by 1998, in line with dures and reducing costs to commer- said General Vesely, also include USAF-wide acquisition reform mea- cial users, the Air Force increased working with all key players to re- sures. He has already reduced ad-

AIR FORCE Magazine / July 1996 75 ministrative, contracting, and bud- produce savings of twenty-five to The "system of systems" approach get staffs. Similar cuts are in store fifty percent compared with today's means both versions would use the for technical staff, largely through models. It also expects the program same launch capabilities, infrastruc- such initiatives as combining engi- to pay for itself in the 2007 to 2010 ture, ground support systems, and neering support for solid rocket mo- time frame, when the US could con- payload interfaces. In effect, an Air tor boosters. ceivably make the transition to a Force program official said, devel- The SPO has already proven its reusable launch vehicle. oping the EELV as a "family" with capability in the latest Titan contracts, The Defense Department did not common elements will yield higher which highlighted recent changes in opt for a completely new expend- production rates (with lower costs) acquisition strategy. Working closely able launch system, said one Air and reduce the numbers of launch with the contractor in cost discus- Force official, because it saw "the crews, launchpads, and support fa- sion, launch SPO personnel had the promise of a reusable system that cilities. information to help them eliminate has higher cost savings" over the "All those things help to drive costly items of scant value. longer term. down the cost—the operations cost, Colonel Brazie added that the Air "From a business standpoint," he as well as the manufacturing and Force could shave costs another ten said, "it's a smart investment be- hardware costs," said the USAF of- percent by combining Atlas and Ti- cause you get the payback in the ficial. "Overall, it would drive down tan crews, eliminating the need to investment that you made and then the life-cycle cost of space launch." keep full crews for each system at you have the opportunity to transi- The program will take advantage each launch facility. tion after that payback to an even of a recommendation to phase in new more affordable system"—an RLV. launch programs during satellite block Why the EELV? DoD and Air Force officials state changes to achieve greater savings. Notwithstanding these cost-saving that the number one objective of the There are also acquisition risk-reduc- endeavors and process improve- EELV program is to reduce cost for tion phases or "exit points." ments, US launch vehicles remain medium- and heavy-lift space ve- In August 1995, USAF awarded very expensive, the result of their hicles. They plan to build a "system four $30 million low-cost concept ICBM-based technology, lack of of systems" derived from existing validation (LCCV) contracts. Alliant commonality, and low production technology and using commercial Techsystems, Boeing, Lockheed Mar- rates. standards with minimum military tin, and McDonnell Douglas each Most experts agree that the opti- specifications and paperwork. have fifteen months to develop con- mum solution is to employ a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) with "airplane- like" operation. NASA is pursuing that type of system for the long term, but the need for an improved ELV is urgent. During a decade of indeci- sion, the US spent millions on un- successful programs, such as the Through such innova- Advanced Launch System, the Na- tions as a different tional Launch System, and the Space- electrical system on the lifter. booster core, a new In 1995, the Pentagon initiated the ground system, and upgraded solid rocket EELV program. This program aims motors, USAF and to produce systems that will eventu- Lockheed Martin, prime ally replace all of today's medium- contractor for the Titan and heavy-lift launchers. Current IV, seek improvements in the nation's only plans call for first launch of a me- heavy-lift expendable dium-lift EELV in 2001 and a heavy- launch vehicle. lift EELV in 2005. Both would be based on a core system, a practice that the Defense Department hopes will lead to a cost-effective family of vehicles. Secretary Widnall said the service is vigorously pursuing EELVs because the US needs "equally viable expendable and reusable launch vehicle efforts to cover our bets for the future." She added, "I don't want to repeat the mistake we made in the early 1980s of having all our eggs in one basket." The Air Force expects the EELV program to yield boosters that would

76 AIR FORCE Magazine! July 1996 cepts to reduce cost. In keeping cally building in or buying commer- November 1995 that it plans to de- with the acquisition reform move, cial-unique requirements, the sys- velop a "common core" booster to each contractor received only a one- tem . . . will benefit the nation from achieve commonality across me- page list of objectives, instead of a a commercial and international com- dium-, intermediate-, and heavy-lift multiple-page statement of work. petitiveness standpoint," stated a vehicles. It expects to get leverage The major product of the LCCV program official. from its common-core strategy and will be a life-cycle cost estimate The one-page list of objectives its ongoing expertise in the launch (LCCE) with a confidence level of highlights the fact that the EELV business to develop a winning EELV seventy percent. "This is really the program will develop a spacelift sys- concept. heart of what you're buying and evalu- tem, "evolved from current launch McDonnell Douglas also plans to ating—to see if you can really achieve vehicle systems or major subsystems develop its current Delta II and new the cost-savings goal the program is thereof." The four LCCV contrac- Delta III into a Delta IV family to based on," stated the USAF program official. The LCCV also provides such products as draft interface specifications, technology risk-mitigation dem- Planned Purchases onstration results, and operation and support documentation. In November, the Air Force will Delta II Atlas II Titan IV select two of the proposed concepts for the next phase—pre–engineer- ing and manufacturing development. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Each contractor will receive about $65 million. The seventeen-month pre-EMD phase will provide a greater 1996 level of detail, including defined manufacturing processes and final 1997 interface specifications. It also pro- duces an updated LCCE at the eighty- 1998 five percent confidence level. The final step is the EMD selec- 1999 AIM tion of one contractor, a move sched- 2000 uled for the summer of 1998. The EMD phase will run for about eight 2001 years, leading to operational medium- and heavy-lift vehicles. USAF val- 2002 ues the EMD contract at about $1.5 billion. 2003 During EMD, the contractor will conduct low-risk payload flights: two for the medium-lift vehicle in the tors plan to produce a concept based meet requirements. The company 2000-2001 time frame, and one for on current or previous work. states that its ongoing work, includ- heavy lift in 2003. The contractor Alliant Techsystems states that it ing a cryogenic upper stage, avion- will also provide an updated LCCE expects "to capitalize on the consid- ics suite, and automated launch pro- at the ninety percent confidence level erable investment and work that has cessing control system, will provide and activate operational facilities and gone into the two major space-launch "validation of the essential building support systems. advancements in recent years—the blocks" for the EELV. The Air Force expects to achieve Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade devel- As part of the National Space initial operational capability (IOC) oped by Alliant . . . and the European Transportation Policy, announced in for the medium-launch vehicle in Ariane 5 cryogenic stage developed August 1994, the Clinton Adminis- 2001 at Vandenberg and in 2002 at by Aerospatiale and Societe Euro- tration gave primary responsibility Cape Canaveral, and for the heavy- peenne de Propulsion." Alliant has for developing expendable launch- launch vehicle in 2005 at Vandenberg teamed with Arianespace, TRW, ers to the Defense Department. The and in 2006 at the Cape. Aerojet, AlliedSignal Aerospace, and principal responsibility for RLVs others for the project. went to the civilian space agency, The "Epitome" Boeing developed the inertial up- NASA. The Air Force expects the EELV per stage, used on the Titan IV, and NASA is working with industry program to produce a commercial has teamed with Rockwell, Bechtel, first to develop a small, experimen- booster the military can use, or a Thiokol, and others. The company tal RLV, the X-34, capable of lifting military booster the commercial in- will focus on "refining the system small satellites into orbit. It will be dustry can use. Secretary Widnall concept and lowering cost through followed by a larger version, the X- called it the "epitome of dual-use commonality, simplicity, and the use 33. Current plans do not anticipate technology." of commercial practices." IOC for the larger RLV until the "Even though we are not specifi- Lockheed Martin announced in 2010-15 period. •

AIR FORCE Magazine/July 1996 77