Session
Technical Session II: Measuring Small Satellite Utility
Abstract
The 2002 Mission Need Statement for Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS MNS) “establishes the requirement for responsive, on-demand access to, through and from space. It also requires on-demand, flexible, and cost effective operations.” [RDT&E R-2 Exhibit, PE 0604855F]. A number of activities have been initiated to respond to this mission need, such as DARPA’s RASCAL and FALCON programs, but their primary emphasis is on the launch vehicle. Responsive Space Lift is a function of the launch vehicle, the payload and the process support. Launch vehicles must be capable of inserting payloads into the desired orbits within hours, payloads must be checked out and operating within just a few orbits, and the process support must accomplish a myriad of tasks within hours that normally take as long as 12 months. This paper will focus on the process support aspects of operationally responsive spacelift (ORS) and identify key approaches and technology challenges that will support ORS missions. One key approach is to depart from the highly individualized and hands-on processes associated with existing space launches in the US and establish an operational or ‘wooden round’ approach to ORS. The term ‘wooden round’ refers to tactical munitions that have long shelf lives, require minimal testing and handling, and can be loaded onto the launch platforms within hours from mission call-up. Smart versions of ‘wooden rounds’ have data interfaces that allow the aircraft crews to load the mission enabling software en-route to the target. Implementing a similar approach for ORS would require dramatic shifts from current launch practices. Innovative and rapid methods for accomplishing range safety, flight termination system, and mission planning functions of the launch process would need to be developed and implemented. The mission planning process would have to shift from an expert-guided highly chaotic process to one where the launch vehicle crews could select desired orbital parameters and load the mission software to the vehicle without a team of experts standing by. ORS may also require that certain missions use air launch to achieve the desired timelines.
Presentation Slides
Real-Time Mission Planning for Responsive Space Lift
The 2002 Mission Need Statement for Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS MNS) “establishes the requirement for responsive, on-demand access to, through and from space. It also requires on-demand, flexible, and cost effective operations.” [RDT&E R-2 Exhibit, PE 0604855F]. A number of activities have been initiated to respond to this mission need, such as DARPA’s RASCAL and FALCON programs, but their primary emphasis is on the launch vehicle. Responsive Space Lift is a function of the launch vehicle, the payload and the process support. Launch vehicles must be capable of inserting payloads into the desired orbits within hours, payloads must be checked out and operating within just a few orbits, and the process support must accomplish a myriad of tasks within hours that normally take as long as 12 months. This paper will focus on the process support aspects of operationally responsive spacelift (ORS) and identify key approaches and technology challenges that will support ORS missions. One key approach is to depart from the highly individualized and hands-on processes associated with existing space launches in the US and establish an operational or ‘wooden round’ approach to ORS. The term ‘wooden round’ refers to tactical munitions that have long shelf lives, require minimal testing and handling, and can be loaded onto the launch platforms within hours from mission call-up. Smart versions of ‘wooden rounds’ have data interfaces that allow the aircraft crews to load the mission enabling software en-route to the target. Implementing a similar approach for ORS would require dramatic shifts from current launch practices. Innovative and rapid methods for accomplishing range safety, flight termination system, and mission planning functions of the launch process would need to be developed and implemented. The mission planning process would have to shift from an expert-guided highly chaotic process to one where the launch vehicle crews could select desired orbital parameters and load the mission software to the vehicle without a team of experts standing by. ORS may also require that certain missions use air launch to achieve the desired timelines.
