sign in sign up
<<
Home , ACRIMSAT, Athena (rocket family), Athena II, Atlas V, CHIPSat, Delta II

Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com

The Evolving Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions

Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint International Conference & Workshop June 12-15, New Orleans, LA

Bob Bitten, Debra Emmons, Claude Freaner

1 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Abstract

• The upcoming retirement of the II family of launch vehicles leaves a performance gap between small expendable launch vehicles, such as the Pegasus and Taurus, and large vehicles, such as the Delta IV and V families • This performance gap may lead to a variety of progressions including – large that utilize the full capability of the larger launch vehicles, – medium size satellites that would require dual manifesting on the larger vehicles or – smaller satellites missions that would require a large number of smaller launch vehicles • This paper offers some comparative costs of co-manifesting single- instrument missions on a Delta IV/, versus placing several instruments on a larger bus and using a Delta IV/Atlas V, as well as considering smaller, single instrument missions launched on a or Taurus • This paper presents the results of a parametric study investigating the cost- effectiveness of different alternatives and their effect on future NASA missions that fall into the Small Explorer (SMEX), Medium Explorer (MIDEX), System Science Pathfinder (ESSP), Discovery, and New Frontiers category of mission classes

2 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Overview

• NASA Launch Vehicle Background – NASA Launch Vehicle Fleet – Launch Vehicle Performance Gap – Mission Launch Histories – Current Launch Vehicles Available from Announcements of (AO) • Problems Presented by LV Gap – Effect on Earth Orbiting Missions – Effect on Planetary Missions • Considerations for Future AOs • Emerging Launch Vehicles • Summary

3 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com NASA Launch Vehicles*

• Small Expendable Launch Vehicles (SELV) – Pegasus SELV MELV LELV Manned – Taurus – II (Retired) • Medium Expendable Launch Vehicles (MELV) – II (Retired) – Atlas II (Retired) – Delta II • Large Expendable Launch Vehicles (LELV) – Titan IV (retired) – Atlas V – Delta IV • Manned Reusable – NASANASA launchlaunch vehiclevehicle familiesfamilies provideprovide aa varietyvariety ofof performanceperformance andand costcost choiceschoices

*Note: As taken from “Major NASA ELV Launches, Volume 2 (1990 to Present)”, IS-2006-02-007-KSC

4 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Progression of Atlas & Delta Launch Vehicle Families Into Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV)*

Progression of Atlas II to Atlas V Evolved EELV to the Progression of (ULA) Delta II to Delta IV EELV

DeltaDelta IIII RetirementRetirement isis followingfollowing similarsimilar pathpath asas RetirementRetirement ofof AtlasAtlas IIII

*Note: As taken from “EELV: The Next Stage of Space Launch”, Randy Kendall, The Aerospace Corporation, Crosslink Magazine, Winter 2004, http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/07.html 5 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Performance Gap Left by Delta II Retirement*

Launch Vehicle Cost vs. Performance $180 Atlas V (521) $160 Atlas V (501) Delta IV (4450-14) $140 Atlas V (401) Delta IV (4040-12) $120

$100 Delta II (2920-10)

$80 Delta II (2420-10) Taurus (3110) Performance gap left by eliminating Delta II $60 Launch Vehicle Cost (FY07$M) Cost Vehicle Launch $40

$20

$- - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 Peformance (kg) to 700 km -synchronous

GapGap LeftLeft byby DeltaDelta IIII RetirementRetirement isis LargeLarge inin BothBoth CostCost ($65M)($65M) && CapabilityCapability (5,000(5,000 kg)kg)

*Note: Cost taken from DISCOVERY 12 AO ELV Information Summary 01/06/2006, and MARS SCOUT AO ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary 01/25/2007. Launch vehicle performance from http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov. 6 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Historical NASA Missions Launched 1990-2006*

10,000

Cassini TDRS-J (-10) EUVE TDRS-I (-9) -EOS PM GOES-N (GOES-13) TDRS-H (-8) GOES-L (GOES-11) Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter GOES-M (GOES-12) XTE SOHO NOAA-M (NOAA-17) FUSE MER-A MESSENGER Mars Global ,000 MER-B Opportunity CONTOUR ICESAT/CHIPSAT Spitzer (SIRTF) QuikSCAT NEAR MAP ACE STEREO-B Cloudsat STEREO-A CALIPSO Mars Polar EO-1/SAC-C Jason-1/TIMED IMAGE SWAS HESSI TOMS-EP GALEX Lunar 3% 1% SORCE WIRE 6% TRACE 23% SAC-B/HETE FAST QuikTOMS 4% Pegasus SAMPEX Taurus SNOE HETE-II Satellite Wet Mass (kg) Mass Wet Satellite TERRIERS ACRIMSAT 100 Atlas II

SeaStar/SeaWiFS Delta II Delta IIH 4% Titan II/III/IV Atlas V ST-5a 10% Delta IV

49% 10 0123456789Pegasus Taurus Atlas II Delta II Delta IIH Titan II/III/IV Atlas V Delta IV DeltaDelta IIII hashas beenbeen PredominantPredominant LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle withwith HalfHalf ofof AllAll NASANASA LaunchesLaunches

*Note: As taken from “Major NASA ELV Launches, Volume 2 (1990 to Present)”, IS-2006-02-007-KSC

7 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Current Launch Vehicles Available for Missions Competed through Announcements of Opportunity (AO)

Mission Range of Cost Cap Available Launch % LV Mission* (FY07$M) Vehicles Cost AO Date Directed Missions /Cassini SMEX $138 Pegasus 23% 2003 $ Taurus 35% EOS-Terra/Aqua Pegasus 17% ESSP $193 Taurus 28% 2001 Shared Delta 2 28% Missions New Frontiers Taurus 23% Most 2002 Discovery MIDEX $214 Delta II 2420 33% Affected } Delta II 2925H 42% Mars Scout Taurus 15% by MIDEX Delta II { ESSP Discovery $439 Delta II 2920-10 22% 2006 Atlas V (401) or 31% Retirement Delta IV 4040-12 Delta II 2925 19% SMEX Mars Scout $490 Atlas V (521) or 2006 33% Delta IV 4450-14 SELV Delta II EELV New Frontiers $803 Delta II 2925 9% 2003 Delta IV Heavy 28% Migration of Missions to SELV or EELV Class MostMost AffectedAffected MissionsMissions willwill bebe ESSP,ESSP, MIDEX,MIDEX, DiscoveryDiscovery && MarsMars Scout;Scout; MissionsMissions willwill MigrateMigrate toto SmallerSmaller LVs,LVs, LargerLarger LVsLVs or or DualDual ManifestingManifesting

* SMEX = Small Explorer, ESSP = Earth System Science Pathfinder, MIDEX = Medium Explorer Launch vehicle cost information taken from NASA provided public data for AOs 8 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Integrated Cost and Schedule Analysis Tool (ICSAT) Used for Estimating Cost & Schedule of Example Missions

Cost Analysis Size Size/ Choose Choose MO&DA Add PM/SE Science choose Launch and GDS Wrap Instruments Spacecraft Vehicle Approach Factor

Cost Risk Methodology Schedule Analysis

Choose Estimate Identify Spread Final Schedule Development Major Cost Per Budget Analogies Schedule Milestones Fiscal Year Profile

Integrated ICSATICSAT ProvidesProvides aa FirstFirst OrderOrder CostCost andand ScheduleSchedule (i.e.(i.e. Budgeting)Budgeting) Cost/Schedule EstimateEstimate BasedBased onon ScienceScience InstrumentInstrument RequirementsRequirements Output

9 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Case 1 Definition: Two Small Spacecraft on Two Separate SELVs

Spacecraft 1 SELV CloudSat-like Instrument* Maximum Performance to Sun-synch, 700 km = 955 kg Instrument Mass (kg) Power (W) CPR 260 270 + Satellite Mass (kg) + Total 260 270 Instrument 260 Spacecraft 454 Propellant 134 Total 848 Image Courtesy of Orbital Sciences Corporation Spacecraft 2 SELV Maximum Performance Calipso-like Instruments* to Sun-synch, 700 km = 955 kg Instrument Mass (kg) Power (W) CALOP 156 207 Satellite Mass (kg) + IIR 21 27 + Instruments 180 WFC 2.6 8 Spacecraft 326 Total 179.6 242 Propellant 94

Total 600 Image Courtesy of Orbital Sciences Corporation

* Source: Earth Science 2006 Reference Handbook

10 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Case 2 Definition: Two Small Spacecraft Co-Manifested on Single EELV Spacecraft 1 Dual Attachment CloudSat-like Instrument* Fitting (DPAF) Mass = 325 kg Instrument Mass (kg) Power (W) CPR 260 270 + Satellite Mass (kg) Total 260 270 Instrument 260 Spacecraft 454 Propellant 134

Total 848 Illustration reprinted courtesy of NASA + EELV Maximum Performance Spacecraft 2 to Sun-synch, 700 km Calipso-like Instruments* = 6015 kg Instrument Mass (kg) Power (W) CALOP 156 207 Satellite Mass (kg) IIR 21 27 + Instruments 180 WFC 2.6 8 Spacecraft 326 Total 179.6 242 Propellant 94

Total 600 Photograph reprinted courtesy of the US Air Force * Source: Earth Science 2006 Reference Handbook Picture of Atlas V taken from http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/07.html 11 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Case 3 Definition: Single Large Spacecraft on Single EELV Instrument Set 1 CloudSat-like Instrument*

Instrument Mass (kg) Power (W) CPR 260 270 Total 260 270 EELV Maximum Performance to Sun-synch, 700 km = 6015 kg + +

Instrument Set 2 Satellite Mass (kg) Calipso-like Instruments* Instruments 440 Spacecraft 633 Instrument Mass (kg) Power (W) Propellant 216 CALOP 156 207 Total 1289 Photograph reprinted courtesy IIR 21 27 of the US Air Force WFC 2.6 8 Total 179.6 242

* Source: Earth Science 2006 Reference Handbook Picture of Atlas V taken from http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/07.html 12 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Earth Orbiting Scenario Cost Analysis Results Comparison

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800

2nd 1st Small st 1st 2nd Set of 2nd 1st S/C 1 Set of Small Case 1 S/C SELV Instruments SELV $681M Instruments S/C 1st Inst 1st LV 1st PM/SE/MA 1st GDS 1st MO&DA 2nd 2nd S/C 1st Small 1st Set of 2nd Set of EELV Small 2nd Inst Case 2 S/C Instruments Instruments $681M S/C 2nd LV 2nd PM/SE/MA 2nd GDS 2nd MO&DA

1 Larger All Instruments EELV $657M Case 3 S/C

WhileWhile TotalTotal MissionMission CostCost ofof CaseCase 11 (2(2 SESELVLV Launches),Launches), isis similarsimilar cost cost toto CaseCase 22 (Co-Manifesting),(Co-Manifesting), thethe SingleSingle LargerLarger Mission,Mission, CaseCase 3,3, isis thethe LeastLeast CostCost AlternativeAlternative

* Development time for Case 1 and Case 2 were estimated to be 4.7-years vs. 5.5-years for Case 3

13 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Pros & Cons of Each Approach

• Case 1: Smaller Missions with Multiple SELV Launches –Pros • More frequent launches • More funding and program flexibility –Cons • Smaller science • Less efficient overall usage of funding • Case 2: Multiple Missions with Co-Manifesting on Larger LV –Pros • Allows for larger payloads than single launches • Unconstrained mass allows adding significant propellant to allow for minor plane change, or significant orbit altitude change, following separation from Launch Vehicle –Cons • Potential for greater cost and schedule growth due to dependency on another satellite • Requires dual manifested satellites go to similar • Case 3: Larger Single Mission on Larger LV –Pros • More “bang for the buck” –Cons • Potentially fewer missions

14 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Parametric Trade of Mission Costs vs. Payload Size*

$2,500 CASE #1 CASE #3 is Best is Best $2,000 SELV EELV Dual P/L EELV Three SELV Launches: Dual Manifest is Better $1,500

Two SELV Launches: Same as Dual Manifest

$1,000

Total Cost of All Missionsof Cost Total Larger Spacecraft Single SELV Launch: with one Larger LV SELV is Best Choice is Best Choice $500 Overall

$- 012345678910 Number of 50 kg Instruments to 700 Km Sun-Synch Orbit GivenGiven RetirementRetirement ofof DeltaDelta II,II, CaseCase #2#2 DualDual ManifestingManifesting isis notnot CostCost EffectiveEffective

* Note: Thirty percent payload mass fraction assumed in all cases

15 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Other Considerations: Cost/Schedule Growth Histories – Based on 40 NASA Mission Data Set

60% 53% Cost Growth 50% Schedule Growth 40% 36%

29% 28% 30% 26%

20% 16%

10%

0% Single Instrument, Single Co-Manifest Multiple Instruments Manifest

Co-ManifestingCo-Manifesting hashas hadhad historicallyhistorically greatergreater costcost andand scheduleschedule growthgrowth duedue toto dependencydependency onon otherother satellitesatellite

16 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Adding Schedule and Cost Growth to Earth Orbiting Scenario Separates Approaches Even Further*

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800

2nd 1st Small st 1st 2nd Set of 2nd 1st S/C 1 Set of Small Case 1 S/C SELV Instruments SELV $716M Instruments S/C 1st Inst 1st LV 1st PM/SE/MA 1st GDS $748M 1st MO&DA 2nd 2nd S/C 1st Small 1st Set of 2nd Set of EELV Small 2nd Inst Case 2 S/C Instruments Instruments S/C 2nd LV 2nd PM/SE/MA 2nd GDS 2nd MO&DA

1 Larger All Instruments EELV $712M Case 3 S/C

RealisticRealistic InstrumentInstrument DelayDelay ofof 6-months6-months makesmakes CaseCase 11 (2(2 SELVSELV Launches)Launches) similarsimilar costcost toto CaseCase 33 (Single(Single LargeLarge Mission),Mission), whilewhile CoCo-Manifesting-Manifesting CaseCase 22 isis thethe MostMost CostlyCostly

* Note: Assumes that only one instrument is delayed such that only one mission is affected in Case 1 while both missions are affected in Case 2 and the whole mission is affected in Case 3 17 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Other Considerations: Earth Orbiter Program Funding Comparison - 2 Smaller SELV Missions (Case 1) vs. a Single EELV Mission (Case 3)*

$250

2nd Small Mission $200 1st Small Mission Single Large Mission

$150 2nd Mission is Staggered Two years after 1st Mission

$100 Annual Funding Requirement ($M)

$50

$- 1234567891011 Program Year

StaggeredStaggered MultipleMultiple LaunchLauncheses havehave similarsimilar profileprofile asas LargeLarge missionmission whilewhile provprovidingiding addedadded flexibilityflexibility

* Development time for Smaller missions estimated to be 4.7-years vs. 5.5-years for Larger mission

18 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Other Considerations: Potential Additional Benefit of Use of Larger Launch Vehicle

• There is potential for substantial cost savings on multi-instrument spacecraft if a large enough launch vehicle is chosen early on to allow unconstrained mass growth

• Some potential areas of savings: – Build it out of “cast iron” - design so that expensive dynamic modeling and structural tests are not needed – No need for lighter weight, more expensive material such as titanium – Easier to get rid of waste heat, as volume is not constrained so avionics could be dispersed/located away from instruments

• This approach would be a major paradigm shift from previous design philosophy that lighter is better given historical restrictions based on constrained launch vehicle performance

• Using the Small Satellite Cost Model structural cost estimating relationship as a guide, an aluminum structure can be 227% heavier than a composite structure for the equivalent cost*

* Reference: Small Satellite Cost Model Version 98DP User's Guide, June 15, 1998

19 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Planetary Launch Vehicle Considerations

• Impact on available funding – Atlas V and Delta IV are larger percentage of mission cost – Overall cost cap would have to be increased to afford EELV • Requirements creep to “fill up” EELV – Unused capacity means that full value is not realized • Example: Each (MER) had a launch mass of 1,062 kg vs. Atlas V 401 performance of 2,880 kg for the required injection energy 2 2 (C3) needed for MER-A of 9.3 km /s and 2,500 kg needed for a C3 of 16.3 km2/s2 for MER-B – Could push new Discovery missions to New Frontiers boundaries • Potential Mars Scout & (MEP) co- manifest – Example: A small Mars Scout orbiter plus a larger MEP lander

DualDual ManifestManifest forfor PlanetaryPlanetary MissionsMissions UnlikelyUnlikely UnlessUnless GoingGoing toto SameSame Destination;Destination; DiscoveryDiscovery maymay migratemigrate toto NewNew Frontiers-likeFrontiers-like programprogram toto “Fill“Fill Up”Up” LV LV

* Note: MER launch mass taken from Mars Exploration Rover Launches Press Kit June 2003,

Atlas V 401 Launch Vehicle Performance for required C3 taken from http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov 20 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Considerations for New Mission AOs

• May consider two-tiered Announcement of Opportunity – ESSP • Traditional ESSP for launch on Taurus • ESSP+ for launch on Atlas V or Delta IV • Selection could consist of two staggered, traditional ESSP or one ESSP+ mission – Explorer • Compete both SMEX and MIDEX together although expand MIDEX for launch on Atlas V or Delta IV • Selection could consist of two staggered SMEX or one MIDEX+ mission – Discovery • Consideration should be given to combine Discovery and New Frontiers into one mission to use full capability of launch vehicle • May require narrower scope of science objectives – Mars Scout • Consideration should be given for co-manifesting with primary Mars Exploration Program mission if volume constraints allow

21 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Emerging Launch Vehicles May Decrease Cost but Proven Performance for NASA hasn’t Been Realized Yet

Minotaur I Minotaur IV • Minotaur – Provides similar capability to Taurus for substantially less cost – Would increase push for smaller missions – Potential problem as it is a USAF, non- commercial launch vehicle •Falcon – would provide similar capability to Image Courtesy of Image Courtesy of Delta II at significantly less cost Orbital Sciences Corporation Orbital Sciences Corporation – Initial launch failed Falcon 1 Kistler K-1 –2nd launch failed to reach orbital velocity but was otherwise successful* – Would need to provide reliable performance before consideration •Kistler

– Has not yet launched Credit SpaceX

•Others Falcon 9 – Launch vehicles on drawing board would not affect near term AOs Illustration reprinted with permission of Rocketplane Kistler Credit SpaceX

* Reference: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php 22 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Summary Highlights

• Delta II retirement leaves significant cost and capability gaps in NASA’s launch fleet

• In cases, dual manifesting on a single launch vehicle is not the preferred option from a cost or performance perspective

• Retirement of Delta II may lead to stratification of NASA missions into two groups that could be competed within same Announcement of Opportunity

• Emerging launchers could reduce launch cost and subsequent mission cost if made available to NASA after providing proven, reliable performance

23 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com

BACK-UP

24 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com References

• Major NASA ELV Launches, Volume 2 (1990 to Present), IS-2006-02-007-KSC, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/167423main_MajorNASAELVLaunches06.pdf • “EELV: The Next Stage of Space Launch”, Randy Kendall, The Aerospace Corporation, Crosslink Magazine, Winter 2004, http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/07.html • DISCOVERY 12 AO ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary 01/06/2006 • MARS SCOUT AO ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary 01/25/2007 • 2006 Earth Science Reference Handbook • Public ELV Performance website @ KSC, http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov • SMEX 10/11: AO 03-OSS-02, ELV Launch Services Information Summary, 1/29/03 • NEW FRONTIERS AO LAUNCH SERVICES INFORMATION SUMMARY, December 4, 2003 • Earth Science 2006 Reference Handbook, eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/2006ReferenceHandbook.pdf • Using Historical NASA Cost and Schedule Growth to Set Future Program and Project Reserve Guidelines, Emmons, D.L., Bitten, R.E., Freaner, C. W., IEEEAC paper #1545, December 20, 2006 • Small Satellite Cost Model Version 98DP User's Guide, Lao, N.Y., et. al., June 15, 1998 • Mars Exploration Rover Launches Press Kit June 2003 • An Overview of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission, James Graf, Richard Zurek, Ross Jones, Howard Eisen, M. Dan Johnston, Ben Jai, Bill Mateer III, as presented at the 2002 IEEE Conference, Big Sky, Montana • Flight Path Control Strategies for the 2003 Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Mission, Behzad Raofi, Ramachandra S. Bhat, Louis A. D'Amario • Kistler K-1 Media Gallery, http://www.kistleraerospace.com/photogallery/wallpaper/wallpaper.html • Orbital Launch Vehicle Image Gallery, http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Images/index.html • Falcon SpaceX Image Gallery, http://www.spacex.com/photo_gallery.php • Post Flight Data Review Positive, http://www.spacex.com/updates.php, as of April 2, 2007

25