Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 6-2008 Operationally Responsive Space (ORS): An Architecture and Enterprise Model for Adaptive Integration, Test and Logistics Jeff A. Alexander Martha Charles-Vickers Talbot L. Smith Michael L. Vickers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Other Aerospace Engineering Commons, and the Systems Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Alexander, Jeff A.; Charles-Vickers, Martha; Smith, Talbot L.; and Vickers, Michael L., "Operationally Responsive Space (ORS): An Architecture and Enterprise Model for Adaptive Integration, Test and Logistics" (2008). Theses and Dissertations. 2880. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/2880 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Graduate Works at AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE (ORS): AN ARCHITECTURE AND ENTERPRISE MODEL FOR ADAPTIVE INTEGRATION, TEST AND LOGISTICS THESIS Jeff Alexander Martha Charles-Vickers Talbot Smith Michael S. Vickers AFIT/GSE/ENV/08-J01DL DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED The views expressed in this thesis are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States Government. AFIT/GSE/ENV//08-J01DL OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE (ORS): AN ARCHITECTURE AND ENTERPRISE MODEL FOR ADAPTIVE INTEGRATION, TEST AND LOGISTICS THESIS Presented to the Faculty Department of Systems and Engineering Management Graduate School of Engineering and Management Air Force Institute of Technology Air University Air Education and Training Command In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Systems Engineering Jeff Alexander Martha Charles-Vickers Talbot Smith Michael S. Vickers June 2008 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED AFIT/GSE/ENV//08-J01DL OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE (ORS): AN ARCHITECTURE AND ENTERPRISE MODEL FOR ADAPTIVE INTEGRATION, TEST AND LOGISTICS Jeff Alexander Martha Charles-Vickers Talbot Smith Michael S. Vickers Approved: ____________________________________ _____________ Joseph W. Carl, PhD., (Chairman) Date ____________________________________ _____________ David R. Jacques., PhD., (Member) Date ____________________________________ _____________ John M. Colombi, PhD., (Member) Date AFIT/GSE/ENV//08-J01DL Abstract The capability to rapidly deploy tactical satellites to meet a Joint Force Commander’s immediate battlespace requirements is a well-documented joint capability need. Key U.S. strategic documentation cites the need for the capability to maintain persistent surveillance or an “unblinking eye” over battlespace and to rapidly reconstitute critical space capabilities to preserve situational awareness. Warfighter’s require a tactical space-based deployment capability that employs a requested launch and operational deployment window of 90 to 120 days. This master’s thesis reports two areas of work: it summarizes (to reinforce) the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) mission tasks using the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System process, and it analyzes and defines the capability gaps within the ORS adaptive Integration, Test and Logistics (IT&L) process for payload to bus deployment to meet shortened ORS timelines. The ORS adaptive IT&L concept of operations developed as part of this work focuses on the Tactical Satellite Rapid Deployment System, which is an adaptive integration, test and logistics capability that enables rapid and effective payload to bus integration to meet a 90- to 120-day warfighter window. This document recommends engineering solutions and processes for an ORS IT&L “to be” state that meets warfighters’ capability needs. iv Acknowledgments We would like to express our sincere appreciation to our faculty chairman Dr. Joseph W. Carl, and to our advisors, Dr. David R. Jacques, Dr. John M. Colombi, Dr. Richard Cobb, and Dr. Brad Ayres, for their guidance and support throughout the course of this thesis effort and program. We would also like to thank all of the other faculty and staff that have supported us in numerous ways to complete this distance learning program at AFIT. This Master’s Thesis team would like to thank the Air Force Institute of Technology for allowing us the privilege to participate in this program. We would also like to thank our sponsor, Mr. Timothy G. Lamkin, Group Two Seven - Seven Special Projects, Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), Kirtland Air Force Base, for supporting us in our work and providing us the baseline information to build this Systems Engineering product. In addition, we would like to acknowledge and thank Colonel, USAF (Ret) Robert Rhoades for giving us his perspective from his years of service in the U.S. Air Force. This team also owes special thanks to the extensive effort that Ms. Maryann Glen (Molly) provided in the area of technical editing and document configuration. We would like to thank our managers at Sandia National Laboratories, Mr. Guillermo Loubriel, and Mr. Wallace T. Wheelis (Ted). They consistently and enthusiastically supported our time, effort, and tuition for this program. Finally, to our spouses, family and friends (especially our mascots, Pia, Honey, and Kong) who supported our late night study sessions and mood swings after exams, we appreciate you! v Table of Contents Page Abstract...................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... vi List of Figures............................................................................................................. x List of Tables............................................................................................................. xi I. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 1.1. General Issue............................................................................................... 1 1.2. Problem Statement...................................................................................... 1 1.3. Background................................................................................................. 2 1.4. Research Objective and Methodology........................................................ 3 1.4.1. Research Methodology........................................................................... 3 1.4.2. Assumptions and Their Implications ...................................................... 5 1.5. Preview ....................................................................................................... 6 II. Literature Review..............................................................................................10 2.1. Department of Defense Strategic Guidance.............................................. 13 2.2. National Military Strategy........................................................................ 13 2.3. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) ....................................................... 15 2.4. U.S. Space Security Policy ....................................................................... 15 2.5. Joint Doctrine for Space Operations......................................................... 15 2.6. ORS CONOPS.......................................................................................... 16 2.7. Joint Oper. Con. (JOC), Joint Integ. Con. (JIC) and Joint Func. Con. ..... 18 2.7.1. Major Combat Operations (MCO) – Joint Operating Concept............. 19 2.7.2. Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept, February 2004 ............ 19 vi Page 2.7.3. Irregular Warfare (IW), Joint Oper. Con., Sept. 11, 2007 20 2.7.4. Battlespace Awareness, Joint Functional Concept, Dec 2003.............. 21 2.7.5. Net-Centric Oper. Environ., Joint Integ. Con., Oct. 31, 2005 .............. 22 2.8. ORS Functional Area Analysis (FAA) ..................................................... 22 2.8.1. Capabilities for Mission Performance for Future Space Operations .... 24 2.8.2. ORS Tasks............................................................................................ 24 2.9. ORS Functional Needs Analysis (FNA)................................................... 25 2.10. ORS Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA)............................................... 27 2.11. Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, and Education, Personnel and Facilities (DOTMLPF) Evaluation: .............................................. 28 2.11.1. Doctrine............................................................................................. 28 2.11.2. Organization...................................................................................... 28 2.11.3. Training............................................................................................. 29 2.11.4. Materiel............................................................................................. 29 2.11.5. Leadership........................................................................................