Launch Services Overview to the Planetary Exploration Decadal Survey Committee November 17, 2009 Bill Wrobel NASA / SOMD Agenda • Overview • Manifest • Launch Vehicles • Issues 2 Overview • NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) was consolidated at KSC in 1998 – LSP provides acquisition, technical management, mission integration and launch management • NASA utilizes a mixed fleet of vehicles (small, medium & intermediate) with varying levels of performance used to support a mix of mission sizes – Mainly for Science Mission Directorate payloads, but SOMD (TDRS) and other government agencies also use NASA launch services – Launches conducted from multiple ranges; CCAFS, VAFB, RTS, WFF, and Kodiak • Vehicles are selected from the NASA Launch Services Contract (NLS) – Through competition based on mass, orbit, class of payload, and best value – Current NLS contract expires in 2010, RFP released to extend the contract • Most recent contract action purchased four intermediate class missions – TDRS – K & L, RBSP and MMS • Important issues – Loss of Medium Class launch service provider, which has been 50% of NASA missions historically – Compressed manifest – Possibility that NASA incurs a portion of the intermediate class infrastructure costs post 2010 3 Launch Services Program Roles & Responsibilities • Identify & Aggregate NASA Space Launch Requirements • Provide Launch Services for Other Agencies, Upon Request • Procure Commercially Available Expendable Launch Vehicle Launch Services to meet Spacecraft mission requirements • Overall Integration • Engineering • Launch Ops • Assure Compliance with Applicable Laws, Regulations & Policy • Collaborate with Other Government Launch Agencies (USAF & NRO) to Seek Areas of Synergy 4 Launch Services Program Relationships NASANASA HQ HQ Bolden Note: Includes Reimbursable FTEs (15) Griffin Exploration Science Space Ops ExplorationCooke WeilerScience GerstenmaierSpace Ops Horowitz Cleave Gerstenmaier Assistant AA for Launch Services Wrobel HQ Safety & Mission HQAssurance Safety & Flight Kennedy Space AssuranceMission Planning Center Board KennedyCenter Director Space Center Center (AA)Director Safety & Launch(VA) Services (GG) (OP) Engineering(NE) (SA) Spacecraft Chief Financial Procurement Engineering Mission LaunchProgram Services Office Programs & ChiefOfficer Financial Procurement Engineering SafetyAssurance & Mission ProgramFrancois Projects Officer Office Assurance Francois 155 12 15 39 25 Interfaces to other NASA Centers Support Contractor Interface MSFC MSFC MSFC MSFC SSC Propulsion DiscoveryMSFC & ELVISDiscovery (Analex) & Discovery & Discovery & Support TechnicalNew Frontiers Support New Frontiers New Frontiers New Frontiers 3 Projects 5 ProjectsWYE 236 5 U.S. Space Transportation Policy • 1988 and 1994 National space policies directed the U.S. Government to use commercially available goods and services to the fullest extent feasible. – Directed agencies to avoid actions that preclude or deter commercial space sector, except when necessary for national security or public safety – Goal was to stimulate private sector investment, ownership, and operation of space assets • January 6, 2005 policy requires U.S. Government to “capitalize on the entrepreneurial spirit of the U.S. private sector, which offers new approaches and technology innovation in U.S. space transportation, options for enhancing space exploration activities, and opportunities to open new commercial markets” – NASA shall maintain capability to develop, evolve, operate, and purchase services for those space transportation systems, infrastructure, and support activities necessary to meet civil requirements – U.S. Government agencies shall purchase commercially available U.S. space transportation products and services to the maximum extent possible, consistent with mission requirements and applicable law • Commercial Space Act of 1998 requires purchase of space transportation services as a commercial item 6 NASA Launch Services Manifest FPB Approved 7/1/09 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Release 10/22/09 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Small Class (SC) A Pegasus (P) K A NuSTAR (P-XL) *OCO (T) GLORY (T) A Taurus (T) 8/15/11 2/24/09 NET 10/1/10 V Falcon 1 (F1) Medium Class (MC) NOAA-N' (D3) 2/6/09 A A A AQUARIUS (D3) Delta 732X Series (D3) V V V NET 9/1/10 WISE (D3) 12/7/09 Delta 742X Series (D4) KEPLER (D) 3/6/09 A A A STSS Demo (D) NPP (D) Delta 792X Series (D) 9/25/09 V 1/16/11 A A Delta 792X H (DH) STSS ATRR (D) GRAIL (DH) V 5/5/09 9/8/11 Falcon 9 (F9) Intermediate (IC) / Heavy RBSP (AV) MARS SCIENCE 5/31/2012 Class (HC) A A SDO (AV) LAB (AV) LDCM (AV) 2/3/10 NET 12/2012 10/2011 A Atlas V (AV) A A TDRS-L (AV) A Juno (AV) A V A 2/23/2013 LRO/LCROSS (AV) 8/5/2011 TDRS-K (AV) MMS (AV) Delta IV (DIV) 6/18/09 4/13/2012 10/15/2014 Delta IV Heavy (IVH) Falcon 9 (F9) OSC/CRS-1 GOES-P (DIV) (T2/C30) 10/2010 GOES-O (DIV) 10/2011 W LADEE (M) GPM Core LSP ADVISORY ROLE 6/27/09 5/2012 7/2013 SpaceX/CRS-1 OSC/CRS-2 JWST (Ariane) 1/2012 (T2/C30) 5/2011 (F9) 6/2014 OSC (T2/H) 1/2013 OSC (T2/H) OSC (T2/H) SpaceX-1 (F9) OSC Demo-1 SpaceX (F9) 1/2014 1/2015 NASA COTS/CRS (Info only) 1/2010 3/2011 (TII) 8/2012 (Managed by JSC/C3PO and SpaceX-3 SpaceX (F9) OSC SpaceX (F9) OSC (T2/H) SpaceX (F9) 8/2010 (F9) 7/2014 3/2015 SpaceX-2 SpaceX (F9) 1/2013 7/2013 2/2014 OSC (T2/H) ISSP) SpaceX (T2/H) 6/2010 (F9) NET 8/2011 1/2012 (F9) 7/2015 SpaceX SpaceX (F9) SpaceX SpaceX (F9) SpaceX 5/2013 (F9) 10/2013 6/2014 (F9) 11/2014 7/2015 (F9) GOES-R CY 2015 IRIS V MAVEN GEMS Discovery 12 Vehicle Unassigned NET 12/2012 11/18/2013 NET 4/2014 5/2015 NOTE: SpaceX/COTS missions assigned to Falcon 9; OSC/COTS missions assigned to Taurus II Castor 30 (C30) or HESSI (H). For NASA Planning Purposes Only Not for Distribution Outside USG UR = UNDER REVIEW Red Fill = Unsuccessfully Launched = SCIENCE I V = VAFB LAUNCH W = WALLOPS LAUNCH A = ATP’d Green Fill = Successfully Launched = SPACE OPERATIONS Gold Fill = COTS/CRS missions approved/in-work = EXPLORATION SYSTEMS = DOD REIMBURSABLE K = KWAJALEIN Commercially Available Vehicles Pegasus XL Delta IV Launch Services Falcon 1 Available Under NLS Atlas V Taurus XL Falcon 9 Delta II H 9 Launch Vehicles Current Vehicles Emerging Vehicles Pegasus Taurus Atlas V Minotaur SLV-A SLV-B Taurus II Delta II Delta IV Falcon 1 Falcon 9 11/17/09 10 7 Launch Site Locations & Utilization Launch Site Locations Available Virginia Marshall Islands Air Force Station, Florida LSP Launch Site Utilization Percentage Breakdown Air Force Base, California Alaska Kwajalein Kodiak 3% 2% VAFB 40% CCAFS 55% Actual Launched: CCAFS = 34 / VAFB = 24 / Kwajalein = 2 / Kodiak = 1 (Reflects mission data from 1998 - Sept 2009) 11/17/09 8 11 Issues Introduction • NASA missions are launched using a mixed fleet of vehicles selected competitively under NASA’s Launch Services (NLS) contract • Ordering period expires June 2010 • Serious issues face NASA (USG) in all classes of service with costs rising, the end of Delta II and a large number of suppliers for few missions in the small class • Problems were not created or will not be solved in a short period of time, but is an ongoing problem likely becoming more serious as time moves on without a solution(s) • True commercial need for launch is nearly non-existent within the US – Mid-1990’s commercial “blip” long since over (see next page) – Most GEO launches (demand is intermediate class or larger) performed overseas – Some US commercial launch of imaging spacecraft due to ITAR, some quid pro quo from foreign entities and the occasional GEO-Comm – Market once owned by the US now performed by foreign services • If USG does not provide the payloads, there is no need for US launch services – No current or planned significant R&D so “Breakthrough” technology leap to make launch inexpensive and less risky – More significant foreign government investment / sustainment and non-market economies • Ariane, Proton, Soyuz, Long March, PSLV, etc. 13 Introduction • As US LV costs rise NASA launches less, as NASA launches less costs rise – fixed budgets plus inflation – Downward spiral that directly affects SMD budget – Supporting more than one provider in any one class may not be feasible due to low flight rates • US infrastructure and resources continue to decay as a result – ULA well supported but maybe not in the most beneficial way, • Has had one reduction in personnel in 2009 already and another is planned • No incentive for ULA to attract commercial customers – Second and third tier suppliers worse off as a result of even lower production • Problems for remaining solid and liquid propulsion, ordnance, and component manufacturers – Aging infrastructure and lack of infrastructure • Current US providers continue to stride towards lower costs through the use of foreign hardware – exception is SpaceX – Engines, electronic components, tanks, valves, fairings, misc structures, separation systems, – Not clear that SpaceX can remain the low cost provider when they really come on-line • US does well when it comes to integration and operations – Unprecedented success rate in nearly all classes 14 Small Launch Vehicle Performance Range (Kg) Performance From Payload Planner’s Guides or Company Estimates 120 inch PLF 92 inch PLF 7 3 50 inch PLF 2 0 60 inch 92 inch N O PLF PLF L O N G E R O N C O N T R A C T Small Class Medium Vehicle Falcon 1 Pegasus Athena I Minotaur I SIGNIFICANT Taurus XL GAP Athena II Minotaur IV Minotaur V GAP Delta 7320 XL GAP Orbit 600 km 200 (a) 250 ~300 375 900 ~1150 ~1200 NA 1650 90 deg 675 km SS 225 325 750-800 1100 NA 1550 C3=0 NA NA NA NA ~280(kg) ~425(b) NA ~390 7425=750(b) Perf risk Low-Med Low Med Low Low Med Low Low Low Avail for Now Now - ~Late CY Now Now ~Late CY ~3rd qtr ~3rd qtr N/A - Science Msn 2014 2014 2011 2011 (c) (a): Falcon 1e concept with higher performance (~400kg) exists, but is in early development stage (b): Requires additional LV provided stage for high energy missions (c): Significant schedule risk exists for first flight date of any new launch vehicle configuration, therefore actual availability is likely 6 to 18 months after dates noted above.