Space

 

 

 

 

DATE: 15 SEP 98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND

 

OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT (ORD) II

 

AFSPC 002-93-II

 

FOR

 

THE EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (EELV) SYSTEM

 

 

 

 

 

\\SIGNED\\

RICHARD B. MEYERS

General, USAF

Commander

 

 

 

 

ACAT Level I

 

 

OPR: AFSPC/DRSV

PHONE: (719) 554-2577

DSN: 692-2577

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

SECTION PAGE

1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY 1

1.1 Mission Area Description 1

1.1.1 Spacelift Mission.. 1

1.1.2 Expendable Spacelift Requirements Background 1

1.1.3 Key Performance Parameters. 3

1.2 Mission Need 3

1.2.1 Assured Access to Space. 3

1.2.2 Competition and Achieving Access to Space 3

1.2.3 Spacelift Mission Needs Statement (MNS) (AFSPC 002-93). 3

2. THREAT 5

2.1 Threat Overview. 5

2.2 Other Threats Identified for Spacelift Systems. 5

2.2.1 Espionage: 5

2.2.2 Sabotage: 5

2.2.3 Electronic Warfare: 5

2.2.4 Nuclear Forces: 5

2.2.5 Economic Threats: 5

3. SHORTCOMINGS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS 6

4. CAPABILITIES REQUIRED 7

4.1 Performance 7

4.1.1 Mass to Orbit. 8

4.1.2 Vehicle Design Reliability 9

4.1.3 Mission Reliability 9

4.1.4 Standardization 9

4.1.5 Infrastructure 10

4.1.6 Payload Interfaces 10

4.1.7 Cost 11

4.1.8 Timeliness (Schedule Dependability) 11

4.1.9 Responsiveness (Call-up) 11

4.1.10 Launch Rate (Basic) 11

4.2 Logistics and Readiness 12

4.2.1 Supportability/Maintainability 12

4.2.2 Technical Data 13

4.2.3 System Data 13

4.2.4 Range Interfaces. 13

4.2.5 Personnel and Training 13

4.3 Other System Characteristics 14

4.3.1 Safety Requirements 14

4.3.2 System Security 14

4.3.3 Orbital Debris 14

4.3.4 Environmental Constraints 15

4.3.5 Transition Operations 15

5. PROGRAM SUPPORT 16

5.1 Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) 16

5.2 Support Equipment 16

5.2.1 Practices. 16

5.3 Computer Resources 16

5.4 Other Logistics Considerations 16

5.4.1 Supply Support. 16

5.4.2 Technical Data 16

5.5 Infrastructure Support and Interoperability 17

5.5.1 Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence 17

5.6 Basing and Mobility 17

5.6.1 Basing. 17

5.6.2 Mobility 17

5.7 Standardization, Interoperability, and Commonality 17

5.7.1 Standardization 17

5.7.2 Interoperability 17

5.7.3 Commonality 17

5.8 Geospatial Information and Services (GI&S) Support 18

5.9 (Environmental) Weather Support 18

5.10 Joint Services and Multinational Applicability 18

6. FORCE STRUCTURE 19

6.1 Launch Services 19

6.2 Personnel 19

7. SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS 20

7.1 Spacelift Mission Schedule 20

7.1.1 Test Flights 20

7.2 Initial Operational Capability (IOC) 20

7.2.1 IOC Events 20

7.2.2 Medium Vehicle IOC 20

7.2.3 Heavy Vehicle IOC 20

7.3 Full Operational Capability (FOC) 20

DEFINITION OF TERMS 21

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS 234

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

Table 1. Government Portion Reference Missions 7

TablE 2. Consolidated Government Portion Reference Missions 8

Table 3. REQUIREMENTS D-2

TablE 4. LAUNCH RATES D-11

 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

FIGURE 1. PAYLOAD INTERFACE 10

FIGURE 2. TOTAL MASS PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS D-3 FIGURE 3. GOVERNMENT ORBITS D-4 FIGURE 4. MISSION DESIGN RELIABILITY METHODOLOGY D-5 FIGURE 5. RELIABILITY GOAL D-6 FIGURE 6. STANDARDIZATION GOAL D-7 FIGURE 7. SATELLITE GROUND PROCESSING TIMES D-9 FIGURE 8. RESPONSIVENESS TIMELINES D-10

FIGURE 9. LAUNCH RATE RELATIONSHIPS D-10

FIGURE 10. EELV REQUIREMENTS DERIVED FROM NSRP FUNCTIONAL NEEDS D-13

 

APPENDICES

PAGE

Appendix A: Requirements Correlation Matrix - Part I A-1

Appendix B: Requirements Correlation Matrix - Part II B-1

Appendix C: Requirements Correlation Matrix - Part III C-1

Appendix D: Requirements Methodology D-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

 

OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT (ORD)

AFSPC 002-93-II

FOR

THE EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (EELV) SYSTEM

 

1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY

EELV Objective

As a nation, we are going to invest with industry to significantly reduce the cost of launch. We want to launch the payloads manifested in the National Mission Model (NMM) safely and effectively. We want to develop a family of vehicles that is technically achievable and costs 25% less (threshold) than current systems with an objective of 50% reduction in the cost of spacelift. We want to partner with industry to develop a standard payload interface, standard launch pads, and infrastructure to launch all the configurations of EELV. The system must launch responsively in accordance with long range, deliberative, and reactive planning. These are the basic requirements for EELV.

Mission Area Description

1.1.1 Spacelift Mission.

The mission of spacelift is to deliver payloads to the desired orbit with high reliability. The spacelift system must provide quality system performance to the required orbit while at the same time meeting designated thresholds and striving to meet the stated objectives.

1.1.2 Expendable Spacelift Requirements Background.

Space is becoming more critical in an information-dominated world. The United States Government needs the assured capability to routinely deploy payloads and replenish expiring satellites on-orbit to meet peace and wartime requirements in a very predictable timeframe. Without this capability on a day-to-day basis, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command (CINCSPACE) cannot assure the combatant commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) will be supported in crisis or war with space based assets. At the same time, the nation needs to lower the annual cost of spacelift to make it more affordable within a declining federal budget environment and to enhance the U.S. industry's competitive position in the face of growing international competition. Consistent with the trend to streamline and reform acquisition, Department of Defense (DoD) is looking for the EELV program to manage risk, apply process controls from other industries to spacelift, move to insight and reviews while replacing them with processes where quality is designed in, and finally to build a strong partnership with industry. The following chronology demonstrates the nation's commitment to making the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle a reality. In the fall of 1993, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to develop a plan to address national space launch requirements as part of the FY94 budget deliberations. The SECDEF then designated the Air Force as lead on this study and identified the Vice Commander of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) to perform the study. The study led to the Space Launch Modernization Plan (SLMP) which was completed in May 94. As a result, the Air Force began the budgeting process to fund Option 2 (see para 1.1.1.1) of the SLMP in the FY96 POM process. Concurrently, Congress directed funding of an evolved family of launch vehicles in the FY95 budget deliberations but required a report to Congress on program strategy before funds release. In August 1994, Presidential Decision Directive on the National Space Transportation Policy (PDD/NSTC-4) tasked the SECDEF to provide a policy implementation plan that includes improvements and evolution of the current U.S. Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) fleet. The directive also tasked the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce (DoC), and Transportation (DoT), and the Administrator of NASA, in coordination with the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), to prepare reports on a set of common requirements and a coordinated technology plan for space launch. PBD-172 to the FY96 budget established the initial funding line for the EELV program. The DoD Implementation Plan was signed and transmitted to the Administration in Nov 94. Following this, the Acquisition Decision Memorandum (signed 15 May 95) established the acquisition strategy. As required, the report to Congress explaining program strategy was released 17 Jun 95. This led to four Low Cost Concept Validation contracts being awarded 24 Aug 95. In Aug 97, HQ AFSPC/DO conducted an EELV stakeholders meeting that led to an updated Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for the EELV system where the government will procure a launch service instead of a hardware approach to spacelift. The CONOPS was approved on 31 Oct 97 and endorsed by all EELV stakeholders. The CONOPS change and projected growth in the commercial market led to a change in acquisition strategy that was officially approved by DUSD(A&T) on 3 Nov 97. Another result of this process was the creation of an interagency panel that has become known as the National Spacelift Requirements Process (NSRP) working group. The common requirements developed from this national forum represents a national consensus and are incorporated in the National Spacelift Requirements Document. This ORD specifically addresses Government ELV requirements and represents an evolutionary approach to meeting the nations expendable spacelift needs.

1.1.2.1 Space Launch Modernization Plan.

The basic tenets of Option 2 in the SLMP report were to: (1) fly out currently contracted ELVs; (2) consolidate medium/heavy launch families by evolving through modifications to the existing launch vehicle or application of major subsystems in order to meet payload block transition opportunities; and (3) maintain the Shuttle for human spaceflight.

1.1.2.2 DoD Implementation Plan for National Space Transportation Policy.

The Director, Strategic and Space Systems requested the Air Force to take the lead in producing an implementation plan in response to the President's National Space Transportation Policy. The DoD plan is the product of an interagency working group with representation from NASA, DoT, DoC, and the DCI. Consistent with the National Space Transportation Policy and Option 2 in the SLMP report, the implementation strategy calls for maintaining the current Medium Launch Vehicle (MLV) and Heavy Launch Vehicle (HLV) expendable vehicles and infrastructure of the U.S. ELV fleet until cost effective alternatives are available. The DoD strategy proposes to immediately begin a program to develop a cost effective alternative to current MLV and HLV spacelift vehicles that can meet payload transition opportunities in 2002 -2005 .

1.1.3 Key Performance Parameters.

The key performance parameters (KPP) are: seven consolidated DoD mass to orbit parameters; vehicle design reliability; standard launch pads; and standard payload interfaces. EELV must be able to launch the mass to orbit of the missions listed in the Government portion of the National Mission Model*(NMM). Vehicle design reliability is the component of mission reliability that includes the vehicle, staging events, and other elements; the threshold is 98%. Launch pads must be able to process and launch all configurations of EELV from that site and the system must provide a standard interface for each vehicle class.

* Note: The Government portion of the National Mission Model is made up of: the DoD portion which includes medium and heavy missions launched by Air Force Space Command to include missions identified for AFSPC, Air Force Material Command, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Other DoD, and Support (National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)); and the Civil portion which includes medium missions launched for NASA and NOAA.

1.2 Mission Need.

1.2.1 Assured Access to Space.

Current National, DoD, and Air Force Space Command policies identify "assured access to space" as the need to assure the availability of critical space capabilities for executing space missions regardless of failures of single elements of the space force structure. This is a key concept supporting National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Air Force Doctrine. These policies indicate that assured mission capability for critical space systems can only be achieved through assured access to space, robust satellite control, on-orbit sparing, proliferation, and reconstitution. Currently, our assured access to space is expensive and costs are likely to increase. Therefore, the new operational need is to maintain a robust, modern space capability at a reasonable cost to launch satellites responsively to meet warfighter, National Command Authority, and other national security mission needs.

1.2.2 Competition and Achieving Access to Space.

During the Pre-Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase, a reassessment of basic program assumptions suggested that sufficient commercial markets existed to support at least two expendable launch vehicle providers. Given this and other considerations, it was determined that a key aspect of ensuring access to space, was to support at least two launch service providers and leverage the competition in the commercial market to reduce costs.

1.2.3 Spacelift Mission Needs Statement (MNS) (AFSPC 002-93).

The present MNS for Spacelift forms the foundation for this requirements document. The Spacelift MNS identifies that without a modern and affordable spacelift capability, we will be unable to meet national security launch requirements and will be incapable of adequately supporting on-orbit forces. The basic tenets contained in the MNS include:

Capable of deploying a broad range of spacecraft, including multiple spacecraft (if required), to intended mission orbits.

Provide a spacelift design and an operations process that are supportable, maintainable, and able to meet schedule demands.

Successfully meet spacecraft mission assurance requirements and deliver spacecraft to intended mission orbits without inducing failures.

Operate at significantly lower per mission and life cycle costs than the current systems.

Provide the ability to quickly and dependably respond to changing missions. Responsiveness to support increased launch rates that may be needed to recover from spacecraft or launch vehicle failures, or to respond to increased on-orbit needs for crisis response or reconstitution, must be incorporated into baseline capabilities.

 

2. THREAT

2.1 Threat Overview.

No unique security or threat issues have been identified for EELV. The EELV is not envisioned to operate from other than secure areas within the continental United States (CONUS). There are, however, threats common to all spacelift systems: information warfare attacks that can disrupt or degrade launch activity; and physical threats to the launch vehicle and its support facilities during times of crisis, increased tension or war. A general overview of these threats can be found in the Space Systems Threat Environment Description (TED), National Air Intelligence Center (NAIC)-1574-0727-98, Nov 97; and Information Warfare Threat to Automated Information Systems TED NAIC-1574-0210-97, Apr 97. In addition, some EELV payloads may be viable military targets. Threats to these are addressed in the respective System Threat Assessment Report for the payload system.

2.2 Other Threats Identified for Spacelift Systems.

By 2020, a small threat to ballistic missiles in the boost phase may exist.

2.2.1 Espionage.

Information collection efforts targeting national security spacecraft, and/or spacelift technologies, manufacturing processes, logistical networks and operations.

2.2.2 Sabotage.

Physical threats to the launch vehicle, spacecraft and fuels to include threats against production, transportation, assembly/mate, checkout, software, command and control and launch facilities.

2.2.3 Electronic Warfare.

Potential threats to spacelift system communication links and relays including "command destruct" links, launch command and control nets, and world wide communication, telemetry collection and tracking networks.

2.2.4 Nuclear Forces.

The threat to spacelift from nuclear forces is very low and operational capability in a nuclear environment is not required.

2.2.5 Economic Threats.

Some foreign commercial launch providers are more heavily subsidized by their country's governments and are able to offer considerably lower prices than U.S. launch providers. Although some international launch trade agreements are in place, these providers are still able to underprice U.S companies and win competitive bids. These unfair pricing practices pose a threat to U.S. commercial space launch operators' ability to capture market share.

 

 

 

 

3. SHORTCOMINGS OF EXISTING SYSTEMS

The current fleet of launch vehicles will continue to operate beyond the turn of the century. However, continued production, operation, and maintenance of these vehicles are cost ineffective for two reasons: (1) escalating expenses associated with inefficient launch systems and their extensive infrastructure, and (2) outdated technologies, designs, and manufacturing techniques. Current launch systems operate with performance margins approaching zero. Additional performance capability is required to create a robust operable system. Current national spacelift facilities, processes, vehicles, procedures and supporting infrastructure are not standardized, making each mission a unique event. Planned replacement of the current fleet of launch vehicles must begin now if the necessary technologies and system concepts are to be available early in the next century to support the needed modernization and improvements to the nation's launch capabilities.

The inefficiencies listed above limit the capacity of United States commercial space launch providers in providing competitive services in the international commercial space launch market. Inability to compete effectively with foreign launch suppliers suggests that recurring costs will continue to rise. This is compounded by the "over-capacity" of existing U.S. stovepiped launch suppliers due to their reduced production and launch rates. All this strongly suggests that consolidation into a single family of medium to heavy lift vehicles per contractor is the right competitive and operational answer for the future.

4. CAPABILITIES REQUIRED

EELV shall meet the thresholds for key performance parameters (denoted by *) while striving to meet the thresholds and objectives for all other requirements.

4.1 Performance.

The mission masses and required orbits for the EELV portion of the NMM are shown in Table 1. The EELV system shall have the performance necessary to launch the government portion of the NMM. The complete NMM includes all Government and commercial launch missions and serves as the consolidated national forecast of spacelift requirements for the future based on documented customer (payload) needs. Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

 

 

 

 

DoD

PAYLOAD

ORBIT

CURRENT

LAUNCH

APOGEE

PERIGEE

INCLINATION

NOTES

PORTION

VEHICLE CLASS*

WT(LBS)***

(NM)

(NM)

(DEGREES)

AFSPC

ADV MILSATCOM

GTO

ATLAS IIAS

8500

19300

100

27

10

DMSP

POLAR

TITAN II

3300

458

-458

98.7

1

DSP

GEO

TITAN IV-IUS

5402

19323

19323

3

DSCS

GTO

ATLAS II

6300

19279

127

25.5

11

GPS IIF

SEMI SYNC

DELTA II 7925

4725

10998

100

55

2

SBIRLEO

LEO

DELTA II

8157

see note

see note

see note

3

SBIRGEO

GTO

ATLAS IIAS

8450

19324

90

27

OTHER DoD

TSX

POLAR

DELTA II 7925

6000

500

500

90

12

NPOESS

POLAR

DELTA II 7925

6840

450

450

98.2

SUPPORT

MISSION A

GTO

ATLAS IIAS

8500

19324

90

27

7

MISSION B

LEO

ATLAS IIAS

17000

100

100

63.4

4, 7

MISSION C

GEO

TITAN IV-CENT

13500

19323

19323

0

7

MISSION D

POLAR

TITAN IV-NUS

41000

100

100

90

5, 7, 8

MISSION E

POLAR

ATLAS IIAS

16100

100

100

90

5, 7

NASA

DISCOVERY

PLNTRY

DELTA II 7920

2000

N/A

N/A

28.5

6

EOS AM

SUN-SYNC

DELTA II 7920

11220

380

380

98.2

9

EOS PM

SUN-SYNC

DELTA II 7920

7000-8000

380

380

98.2

EOS CHEM

SUN-SYNC

DELTA II 7920

7900

380

380

98.2

* Current vehicle class does not mean that the payload will continue to launch on the same class. The specific class of vehicle will be determined by weight and orbit prior to launch.

** Launch weight includes the weight of the separated space vehicle, the space vehicle to launch vehicle and all other unique hardware required in addition to the standard interface to support the space vehicle's mission.

1 - Direct injection orbit .

2 - System Performance Document (SPD) to allow delivery to transfer orbit (4725 lbs to 55 degrees) with spin stabilization or to final orbit (2675 lbs at 10,998 nmi circular orbit at 55 degree inclination) at EELV contractor's option; EELV provides spin table, unless the direct insertion option is used; GPS provides SV destruct system.

3 - SBIRSLEO spacecraft (s/c) will be launched 3 at a time. Launch weight is combined weight of all 3 s/c with adapter. Projected orbit is classified and is in the SPD Classified Annex. 5 - Launch Site may be either Eastern Range (ER) or Western Range (WR).

4 - The capability to achieve higher orbits by coasting, restarting, and executing a short duration burn with the final stage is also required.

5 - The capability to achieve higher orbits by coasting, restarting, and executing a short duration burn with the final stage is desirable but needs to be weighed against the added complexity and risk.

6. - Launch Energy C3=17 km2/sec2

7. - Equivalent missions (Reference SPD Classified Annex)

8- Mission D is a reference mission for a HLV capability from WR. There are currently no Mission Ds manifested in the NMM.

9 - Throw weight is current EOS-AM1 configuration. Delta II 7920 is baseline vehicle for space vehicle design for future EOS AM space vehicles.

10 - AdvMilsatCom includes two space vehicle systems (Advanced EHF and Advanced SHF K/a). Mission model data is the same but orbital parameter accuracy varies .

11 - DSCS orbital parameters are applicable to the first ascending node.

12 - TSX orbital requirements may change pending mission manifest.

Table 1. Government Portion Reference Missions

4.1.1 Mass to Orbit *

The seven DoD reference orbits shown in Table 2 identify the key performance parameters for Mass to Orbit. The three Civil reference missions are not key performance parameters. However, these missions can be accomplished based on the required equivalent performance met by the key performance parameters. As an objective, the medium vehicles should be able to support a growth of 15% and 5% growth for the heavy variant.

DoD

ORBITS

THRESHOLD LAUNCH WT

(LBS)

APOGEE

(NM)

PERIGEE

(NM)

INCLINATION

(DEG)

LEO

17,000

100

100

63.4

POLAR 1

4,400-7,000

450

450

98.2

POLAR 2

41,000

100

100

90

SEMI-SYNC

2,500-4,725

10,998

100

55

GTO

6,100-8,500

19,324

90

27

MOLNIYA

7,000

21,150

650

63.4

GEO

13,500

19,323

19,323

0

CIVIL

ORBITS

THRESHOLD LAUNCH WT

(LBS)

APOGEE

(NM)

PERIGEE

(NM)

INCLINATION

(DEG)

GTO

8,400

19,324

90

27

SUN SYNC

7,310

380

380

98.2

PLANETARY

2,700

N/A

N/A

28.5

Table 2. Consolidated Government Portion Reference Missions

4.1.1.1 Performance Margin.

Performance margin is the amount of additional performance capability a vehicle has above the required mission need at the time of launch. EELV shall have a threshold performance margin of 7% MLV and 2% for the HLV over the KPP for mass to orbit. The performance margin will be used for future payload growth and system robustness. The government intends to reserve 5% of the performance margin (MLV only) as useable payload growth capability for government payloads.

4.1.1.2 Flight Performance Reserve.

EELV performance shall provide a 3s (99.865%) assurance of the vehicle fully meeting mass to orbit requirements (including performance margin capabilities).

4.1.1.3 Orbital Parameter Accuracy.

The accuracy at the final orbit injection point (separation, parking, or transfer orbit) for each payload mission is defined by the following six variables: apogee, perigee, inclination, argument of perigee, Longitude of Ascending Node (LAN) and Right Ascension of Ascending Node (RAAN). These values are defined by each mission and determined by payload customer's requirements. EELV shall have 3 sigma accuracy within these payload defined orbital parameters.

4.1.2 Vehicle Design Reliability *.

Vehicle Design Reliability is the product of all the vehicle components and launch critical ground systems reliabilities, and staging events. This is a key performance parameter. It is measured from the time of flight initiation to payload separation (including a collision avoidance maneuver). Each EELV vehicle shall have a design reliability of at least 98%.

4.1.3 Mission Reliability.

Mission reliability is composed of two reliability components: (1) vehicle design, and (2) launch processing. This takes into account the vehicle design reliabilities and the probability of the ground operations (including infrastructure) and/or workmanship inducing a fault resulting in a mission failure. The spacelift system shall have a mission reliability of at least 97% for heavy missions and 97.5% for remaining missions. Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

4.1.4 Standardization.

The EELV system should standardize equipment and processes among vehicles, payload integration, and systems. The EELV shall have standard payload interfaces and services to reduce system complexity and enhance responsive spacelift capability. However, spacelift systems should have the flexibility to accommodate payloads that may require unique payload adapters, and longer payload processing timelines without adversely impacting the overall responsiveness of the spacelift system. The standard payload interfaces will be developed in collaboration with EELV users. The vehicle contractor shall accomplish off-pad launch vehicle build-up and assembly. Mating of the encapsulated payload and final launch processing may be conducted on-pad. EELV should use standardized hardware/software, processes and streamlined spacelift operations with flexibility to support a broad variety of missions. Industry will determine the optimal level of standardization for EELV based on cost. The following paragraph describe the elements of standardization. Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

4.1.4.1 Launch Pads *.

Launch pads that are required to support the EELV portion of the NMM shall be able to launch all configurations of EELV intended to be launched from that site. This is a key performance parameter. Prior to HLV IOC, it is not a requirement for launch pads to be completely configured for the heavy missions.

4.1.5 Infrastructure.

As an objective, the infrastructure should provide standard equipment and processes to support the launch of each EELV launch vehicle configuration.

4.1.6 Payload Interfaces *.

The EELV shall have a standard payload interface (both vehicle and ground) for each vehicle class in the EELV family. This is a key performance parameter. It includes mechanical and electrical connections, services, ground support equipment and environmental conditioning (Figure 1). Unique payload requirements will be satisfied with an adapter (provided by the payload developer) to the standard interface and is considered part of the payload mass, this includes the possibility of a launch dispenser for multiple manifested satellites. As an objective, there would be only one payload interface for all vehicle classes. The EELV shall enable the capability to support secondary missions, when compatible with primary mission requirements. The secondary payload will have to work with the primary payload to determine available margin and volume.

Figure 1. Payload Interface

4.1.6.1 Payload Accommodations.

EELV shall provide standard payload environments and services. All new government payloads requiring EELV support should conform to these standard requirements. As a threshold, the EELV payload environment must be able to provide sufficient, reliable, predictable and repeatable environments (noise, acoustic vibration, cleanliness, loads, pyro-shock, electromagnetic interference (EMI), temperature, humidity etc.) and the appropriate physical envelope (volume, diameter, length, access) at least the same as the current launch vehicles.

4.1.6.1.1 Payload Separation.

The spacelift system shall provide standard separation communications consisting of a separation enable signal to the payload and a separation complete signal to ground control. Following separation, the launch vehicle shall provide the capability to avoid payload contamination and avoid collision of payload and all space vehicle components or debris.

4.1.6.1.2 Payload Volume Growth

As payload masses have continued to grow so has the required volume. As an objective, EELV should have a planned payload volume growth capability of at least 10% (constant diameter).

4.1.6.3 Payload Encapsulation.

During the transition to the EELV, payload encapsulation may be conducted on the launch pad as deemed most advantageous to the Government. As an objective, payload encapsulation should be performed off-pad for maximum efficiency in processing and launch operations.

4.1.7 Cost.

Using current systems as a cost baseline, the total Life Cycle Cost (less the development costs) and the annual fixed cost for launching the EELV portion of the NMM shall be reduced by 25% (threshold) to 50% (objective) over that of current launch systems. Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

4.1.8 Timeliness (Schedule Dependability).

The EELV shall consistently launch on time based on need and schedule. Given the system is not in a stand down mode, the EELV shall provide at least an 80% probability (threshold) and 90% probability (objective) of launching (within a designated launch window) no more than 10 calendar days after the accountable launch date confirmed 90 days prior. Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

4.1.9 Responsiveness (Call Up).

EELV shall support the call up of unscheduled launches and payload substitution for pre-integrated (first time integration complete) payloads. The call up response time is 45 days (30 days objective) for medium vehicles and 90 days (60 days objective) for the heavy vehicle. As an objective, a substituted payload, ready for encapsulation on the same configuration, should launch in less than 30 days and not drive additional processing other than normal payload mate activities. An unscheduled launch or payload substitution must still meet the timeliness requirement. Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

4.1.10 Launch Rate (Basic).

The Basic Launch Rate (highest planned rate) is the EELV portion of the National Mission Model and it varies for each coast. As a threshold, the EELV system must have the capacity to provide 12 launches at Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) per year, which may include one heavy mission, and 6 launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) per year, which may include one heavy mission. EELV shall be capable of achieving the Basic Launch Rate as a normal course of operations with routine maintenance. The launch rate must be achievable taking into account maintenance of the system and its infrastructure, weather delays, launch range conflicts with other spacelift systems, and other typical launch delays. Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

4.1.10.1 Resiliency (Max. Sustainable Launch Rate).

Resiliency is the increase in launch rates above the Basic Launch Rate and gives the maximum sustainable launch rate (with scheduled maintenance and non-routine operations) that is timely, efficient, and dependable. EELV must be resilient enough to accommodate additions to the NMM and to recover from a downing event or other delays which could cause the system to not meet the EELV portion of the NMM. As an objective, 5 additional launches (2 medium and 1 heavy, East Coast and 1 medium and 1 heavy West Coast) above the basic Launch Rate.

4.1.10.2 Crisis Response (Surge or Peak Capacity).

A crisis may require an increase in launch rates above the maximum sustainable rate to provide on-orbit support to the warfighter. This capacity could be above the maximum sustainable rate (Resiliency) and be used for a short duration and not be sustainable. It will allow the call-up of unscheduled payloads into the schedule with minimal delay of previously scheduled payloads. The objective is to be able to call-up and launch 3 unscheduled medium payloads (2 East Coast and 1 West Coast) within a 2-month period every 12 months and be back on the annual schedule within 6 months (assuming currently launching at the maximum sustainable rate).

Methodology is presented in Appendix D.

4.1.10.3 Launch Recycle.

As an objective, the system should be capable of rapidly reentering the launch countdown, after recycles or holds, in order to maximize the number of launch attempts per window.

4.2 Logistics and Readiness.

4.2.1 Supportability/Maintainability.

The EELV system shall be supportable to enable flexible and efficient conduct of launch operations. The EELV system shall be sufficiently maintainable to allow meeting launch rate and schedule dependability requirements. Where appropriate and necessary, contractor data systems for supply and support maintenance data collection shall be interoperable with those of the Air Force logistics systems. Equipment owned, operated and/or maintained by the government must be supported using the standard Air Force logistics infrastructure. The EELV Contractor may use the Air Force Core Automated Maintenance System (CAMS) or a designated follow-on for contractor owned, operated and/or maintained equipment. Air Force personnel shall be provided electronic access to Contractor maintenance management information systems if CAMS is not used.

4.2.2 Technical Data.

EELV contractor shall provide access to all EELV procedures and technical data to support the Air Force insight roles at the launch base. A technical publications library containing all publications necessary to operate the EELV system in a safe and efficient manner shall be maintained on-site for use by contractor and government personnel.

4.2.3 System Data.

4.2.3.1 In-Flight Data.

The system shall be capable of providing (in as near real time as possible with minimum data loss) telemetry data from launch through the completion of Controlled Collision Avoidance Maneuver and disposal operations. The spacelift vehicle shall telemeter key data (compatible with range equipment) for: assessing system and subsystem performance; determining the flight trajectory and delivery accuracy; and assisting in identification of causes for both flight and vehicle-induced payload malfunctions and failures. The EELV system shall be able to process telemetry launch data for quick-look data review within 30 minutes (objective) following data receipt at an EELV facility and process launch and flight data for post flight data analysis within 3 working days (objective) of data receipt at an EELV facility. The data will assist in determining mission success.

4.2.4 Range Interfaces.

EELV shall be compatible with the existing range infrastructure and plan for compatibility with future range upgrades (i.e. Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) program). The system shall comply with DoD, U.S., and Air Force (AF) directives, policies, regulations and instructions for the electromagnetic spectrum.

4.2.5 Personnel and Training.

4.2.5.1 Type 1 Training.

For all EELV tasks requiring insight by government personnel, the contractor shall provide course materials (e.g. lesson plans, study guides, and tests) and contractor training courses, seminars, on-the-job training, or equivalents. The contractor shall provide all or parts of the necessary equipment and logistics support for all Type 1 training devices. The training facilities used for Type 1 training will be contractor provided. The government's Type 1 training requirements should include minimal differences from the same training provided contractor personnel. The Type 1 training materials and training equipment shall be used to implement, supplement, and/or augment an organic AF training capability.

4.2.5.2 AETC Initial Qualification Training and Unit Proficiency Training.

A training system shall be developed from the contractor provided Type 1 training to provide an initial and recurring proficiency training program. A systems approach to training will be used, and a System Training Plan (STP) shall be developed (Ref AFMAN 36-2234 and AFPAM 36-2211). The training system configuration may be determined by a Training System Requirements Analysis. A training system includes courseware and equipment (e.g. part task trainers, personal computer (PC)-based training). The training system will provide highly trained civilian and military personnel capable of providing knowledgeable insight into the operation and support of the EELV system.

4.3 Other System Characteristics.

4.3.1 Safety Requirements.

The EELV safety program will be planned and implemented through a system safety and range safety program.

4.3.1.1 System Safety.

Safety shall be addressed throughout the EELV program life cycle through a comprehensive system safety program. The program shall systematically identify all the occupational hazards of all EELV systems to eliminate hazards or reduce the associated risks to a level acceptable to the government. Design features will address safety/health issues and health hazards or constraints (such as noise, contamination protection, factors involved in disposal, etc.). Safety critical issues will be addressed and documented throughout the system life cycle, including system design and deployment. The contractor will be responsible for all occupational health and safety issues and claims by personnel working with the system. Space Wing safety, contractor safety, and wing personnel will help ensure EELV contractor compliance with Range Safety requirements and support mishap investigations (in accordance with AFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and Reports) as necessary.

4.3.1.2 Range Safety.

Public safety shall be ensured through a range safety program that complies with EWR 127-1 Range Safety Requirements. The program must provide sufficient vehicle performance data to permit the development of flight safety criteria, and the vehicle shall have a tracking system and a flight termination system which permit destruction of the vehicle in the event of errant or uncontrolled flight. Refer to EWR 127-1 for detailed compliance requirements. The EELV program shall include a system safety program with the objectives being to minimize loss of personnel and resources due to mishaps and preserve the spacelift capability of the Air Force by ensuring system safety is applied throughout a system life cycle.

4.3.2 System Security.

The system shall comply with the intent of AFI 31-101, The Air Force Physical Security Program, and as supplemented by AFSPC. The system will also comply with the intent of the 31 series of policy directives and instructions applicable to the system. Data and communication systems carrying sensitive/critical/classified information shall be protected from disclosure, intrusion, and other forms of information warfare. Physical security countermeasures shall protect against compromise or loss of information and resources due to unauthorized access to facilities, equipment, payloads, data, and shall protect operations against technology transfer, espionage, sabotage, damage, tampering, and theft.

4.3.3 Orbital Debris.

EELV shall comply with International, National, DoD and USSPACECOM orbital debris minimization policies to minimize creation of mission-related debris with mission objectives and cost effectiveness. As an objective, the program will assess and limit; the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal operations, the probability of accidental explosion during and after completion of mission operations, and the probability of operating systems becoming a source of debris by collisions with man-made objects or meteoroids. The program will also have the objective to plan for, consistent with mission requirements, cost-effective disposal procedures for launch vehicle components, upper stages and other payloads at the end of the mission life to minimize impact on future space operations.

4.3.4 Environmental Constraints.

The EELV system shall operate within applicable laws and regulations without waivers and minimize the use and generation of hazardous materials at all sites to include launch, manufacturing and subcontractor sites.

4.3.5 Transition Operations.

The EELV system shall deploy and operate with the minimum disruption to current launch base operations and facilities.

 

5. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

It is the intent of AFSPC to purchase commercially available launch services. Under this approach, the Air Force's role in operations and maintenance will be limited to insight. This section is applicable if changes to this strategy occur and AF personnel are tasked with system logistics responsibilities.

5.1 Integrated Logistics Support (ILS).

The EELV system must meet operational responsiveness goals. An ILS program will be established to insure a disciplined, unified and iterative approach to the management and technical activities necessary to: (a) integrate support considerations into system equipment design; (b) develop support requirements that are related consistently to readiness objectives, to design, and to each other; (c) acquire the required support; and (d) provide the support during the operational phase at a minimum cost.

5.2 Support Equipment.

The EELV systems will utilize existing support equipment to the greatest extent possible including possible modifications to the existing equipment. Equipment owned, operated and/or maintained by the government must be supported using the standard Air Force logistics infrastructure.

5.2.1 Practices.

Best human factors/ergonomic commercial practices shall be employed in the development, selection, and configuration of equipment, software, positions, tasks, and procedures when defining the operating environments for operator, maintainer, and support personnel.

5.3 Computer Resources.

Computers and communications equipment that will interface with base level C4I systems should be procured IAW the space mission area operational architecture, systems architecture and guidelines set forth in the Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management and the Joint Technical Architecture. Off-the-shelf (commercial or military) hardware and software shall be utilized to the maximum extent practical.

5.4 Other Logistics Considerations.

5.4.1 Supply Support.

Automated supply databases shall be used in conjunction with an optimized sparing approach to reduce standing stock levels and to encourage flexible and responsive sparing. Where appropriate and necessary, contractor systems will be interoperable with standard Air Force logistics systems. As a minimum, the Air Force will require electronic access to contractor data systems.

5.4.2 Technical Data.

The Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) shall be the basis for development of technical data. Scientific and technical information requirements shall be identified for each element in order to translate system design requirements into engineering and supportability documentation. Proprietary data restrictions will be minimized. Commonality of technical manuals, operating manuals and publications shall be maximized between commercial and military versions. Manuals delivered for use by Air Force personnel must be managed using a disciplined change process. A technical publications library shall be maintained on-site for use by contractor and government personnel. This library shall contain all publications necessary to operate the EELV system in a safe and efficient manner.

5.5 Infrastructure Support and Interoperability

5.5.1 Command, Control, and Intelligence

5.5.1.1 Command and Control Structure.

A common set of agreed upon standards should be in place to ensure command and control systems interface properly with standard base level systems and interoperability is achieved throughout the spectrum of expendable launch vehicle operations.

5.5.1.2 Operational Intelligence Support.

During launch processing and operations, foreign threat information will be provided to the appropriate launch operations control center through the wing intelligence officer.

5.6 Basing and Mobility.

5.6.1 Basing.

The majority of military EELV operational elements and personnel will be based at Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) and Vandenburg Air Force Base (VAFB). Training will be conducted at one or both of these bases. The production infrastructure may employ facilities throughout the CONUS.

5.6.2 Mobility.

The EELV system has no (transportation) mobility requirements.

5.7 Standardization, Interoperability, and Commonality.

5.7.1 Standardization.

EELV will develop and implement standards for hardware, software, training, etc., to maximize commonality within the system.

5.7.2 Interoperability.

The system shall provide interoperability with the Defense Information Infrastructure common operating environment and between elements of the EELV family, the Eastern and Western Ranges and the Air Force Satellite Control Network systems.

5.7.3 Commonality.

The system shall maximize commonality between medium and heavy systems.

5.8 Geospatial Information and Services (GI&S) Support.

New launch operations facilities will require recertification of elevation, latitude, and longitude data. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency and GI&S personnel will perform appropriate surveys as needed.

5.9 (Environmental) Weather Support.

The EELV system will require (environmental) weather support at the launch sites during all phases of launch processing. Conditions warranting special concern include thunderstorms and lightning in the launch area, solar flares/cosmic disturbances, surface winds, winds aloft, temperature, and humidity.

5.10 Joint Services and Multinational Applicability.

The EELV program must support DoD launch needs as well as civil needs. There is also potential for dual-use with the commercial sector. Joint Potential Designator is "Joint Interest."

6. FORCE STRUCTURE

6.1 Launch Services.

The EELV program will partner with industry to develop a launch capability for AFSPC to meet the NMM requirements. AFSPC will procure launch services from the EELV contractor and use the developed launch capability.

6.2 Personnel.

Every effort should be made to minimize the number of personnel needed while maintaining required insight and control of spacelift operations.

7. SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Spacelift Mission Schedule.

The EELV mission schedule is identified in the National Mission Model. It is expected that the period of transition, from current systems to the EELV system, will begin with program introduction at the launch sites through achieving full operational capability.

7.1.1 Test Flights.

Dedicated test launches are not planned. Data from government or commercial flights will be evaluated to ensure system requirements have been met.

7.2 Initial Operational Capability (IOC).

Initial Operational Capability is an event driven milestone and not a calendar date, but for planning purposes dates have been identified indicating when those events are expected. The following paragraphs outline the criteria necessary to declare IOC.

7.2.1 IOC Events.

Before an IOC can be declared the following events shall be completed and/or delivered:

Site activation and facilities construction necessary for launch operations

Access to contractor EELV data and technical manuals

Interim AFOTEC test report

Type 1 training

Training for insight into operations and maintenance

Production capability for the system is in place

7.2.2 Medium Vehicle IOC.

Medium vehicle IOC shall be accomplished when EELV demonstrates a launch rate of 3 launches (government or commercial if of the same variant) in a 12-month period on the east coast and 1 launch in a 12 month period on the west coast. Actual IOC dates will be driven by the launches in the NMM.

7.2.3 Heavy Vehicle IOC.

Heavy vehicle IOC shall be accomplished when EELV demonstrates the capability to process and launch a heavy vehicle (government or commercial) from either CCAS or VAFB. Actual IOC dates will be driven by the launches in the NMM.

7.3 Full Operational Capability (FOC).

For the EELV system to reach FOC, all IOCs shall have been completed. This includes the close-out of all corrective actions generated during the heavy flight and ensuring VAFB infrastructure is capable of launching an HLV (pads and facilities).

 

 

 

 

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Accommodate Payloads: Ability of the system to provide sufficient, predictable and repeatable services (fuel, power, etc.), environment (noise, vibration, contamination, loads, etc.), and the physical envelope (volume, diameter, length) for the payload. Operation of spacelift systems must not induce failure to the payload.

Accountable Launch Date: The date the scheduled launch is confirmed is at least 90 days prior to launch.

Adequacy of Payload Accommodations: The degree to which the standard payload accommodations satisfy the established mission interface requirements.

Annual Fixed Costs: The costs of maintaining the launch capability that is independent from the launch rate and the type vehicle launched.

Apogee: Point in the orbit where the satellite is farthest from the Earth.

Argument of Perigee: The angle between the ascending node and perigee (measured in the orbit plane).

Ascending Node: The point where the satellite passes through the equatorial plane going from south to north.

Call-up Time: Predicted minimum time from call-up to launch, responsiveness (Call-up may impact other payload schedules).

Capable: What the spacelift system can do. It implies consistent, repeatable performance.

Constraints: Imposed restrictions that must be met as part of system design/operation.

Economical: The balance between costs and benefits associated with the spacelift system.

Environmental: Be in compliance with environmental laws (endo-atmospheric).

Growth Potential: The degree to which (time, cost) the system approach or hardware design enables an increase or decrease in the spacelift system capabilities .

Heavy Launch Vehicle: A spacelift vehicle that can lift the weight associated with Titan IV.

Heavy Payloads: Payloads currently flying on the Titan IV, reference missions Polar 2 and GEO

Inclination: Angle between the satellite's orbit plane and the Earth's equatorial plane.

Insight: An operational risk management approach requiring minimum governmental involvement into contractor processes and operations. It relies heavily on government trust and confidence in contractor performance. At the launch base, insight is implemented through actions necessary to ensure public safety for all space launches and integrate the launch team to achieve successful space access for government missions.

Launch Rate: Capability to achieve the planned number of spacelift missions in a given period of time under routine operational conditions.

Launch Service: The assignment of responsibility for getting a payload from factory to orbit, based on the successful completion of all necessary processing and launch tasks.

Launch Vehicle Performance: Capability of the system to accurately deliver mission mass to required orbit(s) (polar, LEO, GTO, GEO, sun-synchronous, Molniya, escape, etc.).

Life Cycle Cost: All costs associated with a system and its support components from design through reclamation.

Longitude of Ascending Node (LAN): Longitude on the Earth of the ascending node (for reference of the orbit to the Earth).

Low Recurring Cost: Spacelift System recurring cost is the price of the service provided by the spacelift system as charged by the provider to the user plus the expected cost of failure. This recognizes that there may be additional unique payload costs which are not included in the above.

Maintainable: The ability of the spacelift system to be retained in or restored to a specified condition using prescribed procedures and resources.

Mass to Specified Orbit: Payload pounds mass to a specified orbit per mission.

Medium Launch Vehicle: A spacelift vehicle that can lift the weights associated with Titan II, Delta, or Atlas launch vehicles.

Missions Per Year: The number of spacelift launches per year as reflected in the National Mission Model.

National Spacelift Capability: The sum of spacelift system(s) capabilities to perform spacelift missions which includes single or multiple vehicle classes and their supporting infrastructure(s).

Operable: How the spacelift system works.

Orbital Parameter Accuracy: The targeted accuracy with which the spacelift system delivers the payload to the trajectory or orbit defined by the mission (e.g. state vector position and velocity).

Payload Mass Growth: A preplanned path that shows how the launch system can accommodate the future mass growth of payloads.

Performance Margin: Performance margin is the amount of additional performance capability a vehicle has above the required mission need at the time of launch. This additional performance capability is to create a robust operable system.

Perigee: Point in the orbit where the satellite passes closest to the Earth.

Primary Payload: The payload which establishes the LV mission requirements. This could include multiple identical payloads.

Recurring Cost: Total final expenditure (excluding mission R & D modifications associated with an individual spacelift mission including insurance cost or expected loss based on spacelift system risk and payload value).

Reliability, Mission: The ability to complete the spacelift mission, from launch to payload separation, at a success rate to sustain constellations.

Reliability, Vehicle Design: The product of all the vehicle components and the staging events and is measured from the time of flight initiation to payload separation (including a collision avoidance maneuver).

Reliable: Mission assurance of the spacelift system.

Resilient: The ability to quickly recover from an event(s) (e.g., downing event or failure) which causes the system(s) to get behind schedule.

Responsive: The ability to quickly and dependably respond to changing requirements or launch on need (e.g., payload exchange, accelerated launch, surge capability) with minimum impact to maintenance of nominal launch rate.

Right Ascension of Ascending Node (RAAN): Angle from the Vernal Equinox to the ascending node (for reference of the orbit to inertial space, that is, other planets, stars, etc.).

Secondary Payload: A payload other than the primary payload designed to use available margin and ride with the primary payload.

Soft-integrated Payloads: The payload has complete mission planning data and integration tasks and is ready to be mated to the launch vehicle.

Spacelift Mission Success: A successful mission is defined as meeting all the requirements as identified in the payload requirements documents, launch services agreement, etc. Partial success criteria must be similarly defined.

Spacelift System: A system includes: Launch vehicle (including upper stage if required and interface to payload); Launch complex that the launch vehicle flies from; Recovery complex as required (e.g., refurbishment facilities); Direct range and support infrastructure; Associated vehicle/customer processes and supporting industrial base (e.g., sustaining engineering, depot/logistics support, acquiring permits); Payload recovery system as required. (Direct range and support infrastructure is defined as actual uses of facilities that can be unambiguously associated with a particular launch effort and would not occur in the absence of that effort.).

Standardization: The maximum use of common infrastructure, equipment, and processes for launch vehicles, facilities, pads, and payload interfaces.

Supportable: The degree to which system design characteristics and planned logistics resources, including manpower, meet mission requirements.

System Safety: The application of engineering and management principles, criteria, and techniques to optimize safety within the constraints of operational effectiveness, time, and cost throughout all phases of the system life cycle.

System Security: The aggregate of all countermeasures in a system that contributes to its security from intelligence gathering and clandestine or overt attack, including organic system functions and procedures as well as the security subsystems.

Throughput Capacity: The maximum number of spacelift launches per year that can be accomplished under routine conditions.

Timeliness (Schedule Dependability): The ability of the system to consistently launch when planned so as to maintain the throughput required to launch the National Mission Model.

LIST ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AdvMilsatCom Advanced Military Satellite Communications

AF Air Force

AFMC Air Force Materiel Command

AFSPC Air Force Space Command

AFI Air Force Instruction

AFOTEC Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center

APB Acquisition Program Baseline

 

CAMS Core Automated Maintenance System

CCAS Cape Canaveral Air Station

CINC Commander-in-Chief

CINCSPACE Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space

Command

CONOPS Concept of Operations

CONUS Continental United States

DCI Director of Central Intelligence

DMSP Defense Meteorological Support Program

DoC Department of Commerce

DoD Department of Defense

DoT Department of Transportation

DSCS Defense Satellite Communication System

DSP Defense Support Program

EELV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle

EMI Electromagnetic Interference

EOS Earth Observation Satellite

ER Eastern Range

EWR Eastern and Western Range Regulation

FOC Full Operational Capability

GEO Geosynchronous Earth Orbit

GPS Global Positioning System

GTO Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit

HLV Heavy Launch Vehicle

HQ Headquarters

IAW In Accordance With

ILS Integrated Logistics Support

IOC Initial Operational Capability

KPP Key Performance Parameter

LAN Longitude of Ascending Node

LEO Low Earth Orbit

LSA Logistics Support Analysis

MLV Medium Launch Vehicle

MNS Mission Need Statement

NAIC National Air Intelligence Center

NASA National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

NM Nautical Mile

NMM National Mission Model

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency

NPOESS National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System

NRO National Reconnaissance Office

NSPD National Space Policy Directive

NSRP National Spacelift Requirements Process

O&M Operations and Maintenance

ORD Operational Requirements Document

OUSD(A&T) Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology

PDD Presidential Decision Directive

POM Program Objective Memorandum

RAAN Right Ascension of Ascending Node

RSA Range Standardization and Automation

SBIRLEO Space Based Infrared Low Earth Orbit

SBIRGEO Space based Infrared Geo Orbit

s/c Spacecraft

SECDEF Secretary of Defense

SLMP Space Launch Modernization Plan

SPD System Performance Document

 

STP System Training Plan

SV Space Vehicle (Payload)

 

TBR To be Reviewed

TED Threat Environment Description

VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base

WR Western Range

1a. Mass to Orbit* - (4.1.1)

Consolidated DoD Missions. (Based on the NMM)

                 

(1) LEO: 100nm x 100nm. 63.4 Degrees

 

*17,000 lbs

   

*17,000 lbs

+15%

 

*17,000 lbs

+15%

(2) POLAR 1: 450nm x 450nm. 98.2 Degrees

 

*4,400-7000 lbs

   

*4,400-7000 lbs

+15%

 

*4,400-7000 lbs

+15%

(3) POLAR 2: 100nm x 100nm. 90 Degrees

 

*41,000 lbs

   

*41,000 lbs

+5%

 

*41,000 lbs

+5%

(4) SEMI-SYNC: 10,998nm x 100nm. 55 Degrees

 

*2,500-4,480 lbs

   

*2,500-4,480 lbs

+15%

 

*2,500-4,725 lbs

+15%

(5) GTO: 19,324nm x 90nm. 27 Degrees

 

*6,100-8,500 lbs

   

*6,100-8,500 lbs

+15%

 

*6,100-8,500 lbs

+15%

(6) MOLNIYA: 21,150nm x 650nm. 63.4 Degrees

 

*7,000 lbs

   

*7,000 lbs

+15%

 

*7,000 lbs

+15%

(7) GEO: 19,323nm x 19,323nm. 0 Degrees

 

*13,500 lbs

   

*13,500 lbs

+5%

 

*13,500 lbs

+5%

1b. Mass to Orbit - (4.1.1)

Consolidated Civil Missions. (Based on the NMM)

                 

(1) GTO: 19,324nm x 100nm. 28.7 Degrees

       

4,060 lbs

+15%

 

8,400 lbs

+15%

(2) SUN-SYNC: 380nm x 380nm. 98.2 Degrees

       

7,000-11,200 lbs

+15%

 

7,310 lbs

+15%

(3) PLANETARY: 28.5 Degrees

       

2,000 lbs

+15%

 

2,700 lbs

+15%

2. Performance Margin (4.1.1.1)

Additional performance capability above the required mission need at the time of launch

 

TBR

15% (TBR)

 

2%

5%

 

7% for MLV

2% for HLV

20% for MLV

10% for HLV

3. Flight Performance Reserve (4.1.1.2)

       

3 Sigma assurance

SAME

 

3 Sigma assurance

SAME

4. Orbital Parameter Accuracy (4.1.2)

(Based on Payload Database Document)

 

Identified by payload - 3 sigma value

TBD

 

Identified by payload - 3 sigma value

Better than 3 sigma value

 

Identified by payload - 3 sigma value

Better than 3 sigma value

5. Mission Reliability (4.1.3)

(was System Reliability)

 

TBR

TBR

 

Med: 97.5%

Heavy: 97%

>97.5%

 

Med: 97.5%

Heavy: 97%

>97.5%

6. Vehicle Design Reliability * (4.1.2)

 

98% (TBR)

>98%(TBR)

 

98%

>98%

 

98%

>98%

7. Launch Pads *(4.1.4.1)

 

Standardized and able to launch all configs. of EELV (TBR)

TBR

 

Standardized and able to launch all configs. of EELV for that site

SAME

 

Standardized and able to launch all configs. of EELV for that site

SAME

8. Payload Interfaces * (4.1.6)

 

Standard interfaces (Additional interface requirements met by payload adapter) (TBR)

TBR

 

Standard payload interface for each vehicle class (Additional interface requirements met by payload adapter)

One standard payload interface

 

Standard payload interface for each vehicle class (Additional interface requirements met by payload adapter)

One standard payload interface

9. Payload Separation (4.1.6.1.1)

       

Provide standard separation signals

SAME

 

Combined with payload accomodations.

SAME

10. Infrastructure (4.1.5)

 

Maximize standardization of equipment processes (TBR)

TBR

 

Standard equipment and processes for each launch vehicle configuration

Standard equipment and process for all vehicles

 

None

Standard equipment and processes for each launch vehicle configuration

11. Operational Launch Procedures (4.1.5)

 

Standardized and able to launch any configuration of EELV from either coast (TBR)

TBR

 

Standardized and able to process each configuration of EELV from each launch site

Standardized and able to process any configuration of EELV from all launch sites

 

None

Standardized and able to process each configuration of EELV from each launch site

12. Payload Substitution (4.1.9)

 

Allow payload substitution TBR days prior to launch.

TBR

 

Allow payload substitution prior to payload mate and not effect schedule

SAME

 

Combined with responsiveness requirement.

13. Payload Accommodations (4.1.6.1)

 

Standard Services and predictable environment

TBR

 

Standard predictable environment at least as good as the current systems

Standard predictable environment better then the current systems

 

Standard predictable environment at least as good as the current systems

Standard predictable environment better then the current systems

14. Payload Volume Growth (4.1.6.1.1)

 

TBR

10%(TBR)

 

5% (constant diameter)

10% (constant diameter)

 

Combined with performance margin

10% (constant diameter)

15. Cost Savings (4.1.7)

Life Cycle and Annual Fixed Costs

 

25% less than current systems.

50% less than current systems.

 

25% less than current systems

50% less than current systems.

 

25% less than current systems

50% less than current systems.

16. Timeliness (4.1.8)

Schedule Dependability

 

- 3 to + 10 days (TBR)

< - 3 to + 10 days (TBR)

 

80% probability of launch within 10 days after the accountable launch date

90% probability of launch within 10 days after the accountable launch date

 

80% probability of launch within 10 days after the accountable launch date

90% probability of launch within 10 days after the accountable launch date

17. Responsiveness (Call-up) (4.1.9)

The number of days between the notification and the launch and still meet timeliness requirement

 

MEDIUM :

(TBR) days

Actually launch within -3 to +10 days (TBR)

HEAVY:

(TBR) days

Actually launch within -3 to +10 days (TBR)

MEDIUM :

(TBR)

 

 

 

HEAVY:

(TBR)

 

Med: 45 days

Heavy: 90 days

Med: 30 days

Heavy: 60 days

 

Medium: 45 days

Heavy: 90 days

Allow payload substitution and not effect schedule

Medium: 30 days

Heavy: 60 days

 

18. Launch Rate (4.1.10)

Maximum missions per year upon reaching FOC

 

MLV-CCAS

7 max, 2 min

Average 5

MLV-VAFB

4 max, 1 min

Average 2

HLV-CCAS

2 max, 1 min

Average 1

HLV-VAFB

2 max, 0 min

Average 1

   

MLV-CCAS 11

MLV-VAFB 4

HLV-CCAS 1

HLV-VAFB 2

Max Annual Planned Rate: 14

MLV-CCAS 15

MLV-VAFB 6

HLV-CCAS 2

HLV-VAFB 3

Max possible Launches: 26

Includes additional launches from Resiliency and Crisis Response

 

CCAS - 12 launches (to include 1 heavy)

VAFB - 6 launches to include 1 heavy)

Max Annual Planned Rate: 14

Includes additional launches from Resiliency and Crisis Response

 

Max possible Launches: 26

19. Resiliency (4.1.10.1)

Maximum Sustainable Launch Rate

 

TBR

10%(TBR) above average number of missions per year (DoD portion of NMM) plus margin for increased use (i.e. responsiveness, recovery from failure)

 

NONE

5 additional launches, 2 medium and 1 heavy from the East Coast and 1 medium and 1 heavy from the West Coast above basic Launch Rate

 

NONE

5 additional launches, 2 medium and 1 heavy from the East Coast and 1 medium and 1 heavy from the West Coast above basic Launch Rate

20. Crisis Response (Surge or Peak Capacity) (4.1.10.2)

The peak unsustainable launch capacity

 

TBD

TBD

 

NONE

Launch 3 medium (2 from the east coast and 1 from the west coast) unscheduled payloads within a 2 month period every 12 months and be back on the annual schedule within 6 months (assuming currently launching at the maximum sustainable rate)

 

NONE

Launch 3 medium (2 from the east coast and 1 from the west coast) unscheduled payloads within a 2-month period every 12 months and be back on the annual schedule within 6 months (assuming currently launching at the maximum sustainable rate)

21. Mission Ready Hold

Upon reaching T-24 hours able to hold and still launch within 24 hours

 

TBR

30 days/24 hrs to launch (TBR)

 

10 days

SAME

 

Deleted

 

22. Launch Recycle (4.1.10.3)

Return to the last hold point (TBR) anytime up to the last recycle point (TBR)

 

TBR

TBR

 

Within 5 minutes

Less then 5 minutes

 

None

Allow multiple launch attempts for each window

23. Launch Ready Hold

Able to hold after a Launch Recycle

 

TBR

T minus (TBS) minutes for 2 hrs (TBR)

 

2 hours

4 hours

 

Deleted

Deleted

24. Next Day Readiness

Ready to launch next calendar day following a launch scrub occurring at or before the last recycle point (T-9 seconds TBR)

 

Recycle within TBR for immediate launch. Perform launch recycle on at least two consecutive days.

TBR

 

2 consecutive days

10 consecutive days

 

Deleted

Deleted

25. Launch Abort

 

Fail-safe abort (TBR)

TBR

 

Safe abort prior to launch commit

SAME

 

Deleted

Deleted

26. Supportability/Maintainability (4.2.1)

 

No less than current systems

The system will be capable of detecting and isolating faults: (TBR)

- 99% of the time to 3 or less LRUs

- 95% to 2 or less LRUs

- 90% to 1 LRU

 

The ground system shall be capable of detecting and isolating faults: (TBR)

- 99% of the time to 3 or less LRUs

- 95% to 2 or less LRUs

- 90% to 1 LRU

The system will be capable of detecting and isolating faults: (TBR)

- 99% of the time to 3 or less LRUs

- 95% to 2 or less LRUs

- 90% to 1 LRU

 

The system shall be supportable to enable flexible and efficient conduct of launch operations.

SAME

27. Flight Worthy Hardware

 

Arrive at launch base flight ready

   

Arrive at launch base flight with no actions or waivers against flight components

SAME

 

Deleted

Deleted

28. Standard Technical Data (4.2.2)

 

Standard procedures and digitized technical data

   

Standard procedures and digitized technical data for tasks performed by government personnel

SAME

 

Access to procedures and tech manuals

SAME

29. Pre-Flight Diagnostics

 

Minimize operator involvement (TBS)

TBR

 

System shall include built-in tests, integrated vehicle health monitoring and FD/FI

SAME

 

Deleted

Deleted

30. In-Flight Diagnostics

 

Provide a basis for identification of malfunction and failure

TBR

 

Heath monitoring and FD/FI

SAME

 

Deleted

Deleted

31. Pre-Flight Data

       

Provide information to support launch decision

SAME

 

Deleted

Deleted

32. In-Flight Data (4.2.3.1)

 

Real-time telemetry data. (TBD)

Quick-look review within 2 hours (TBR)

 

Provide real-time telemetry data and support Quick-look review within 2 hours and report within 7 working days

Provide real-time telemetry data and support Quick-look review within 30 minutes and report within 3 working days

 

Provide telemetry data to support an assessment of system performance

Provide telemetry data to support Quick-look review within 30 minutes and report within 3 working days

33. Range Interface (4.2.4)

 

 

TBR

Interface and be compatible with current ranges to include airborne and space based systems (TBR)

TBR

 

Sufficient signal strength and be compatible with current ranges which can include airborne and space based systems

SAME

 

Sufficient signal strength and be compatible with current ranges and plan for compatibility with future range upgrades which can include airborne and space based systems

SAME

34. Type 1 Training (4.2.5.1)

 

Contractor shall provide all necessary training

TBR

 

Contractor shall provide all necessary training including data and equipment

SAME

 

Contractor shall provide all necessary training including data and equipment

SAME

35. AETC Initial Qualification Training (4.2.5.2)

       

Develop System Training Plan

SAME

 

Develop System Training Plan

SAME

36. System Safety (4.3.1.1)

 

Perform hazard analysis on overall system design IAW EWR 127-1

SAME

 

Perform hazard analysis on overall system design IAW EWR 127-1

SAME

 

Perform hazard analysis on overall system design IAW EWR 127-1

SAME

37. Range Safety (4.3.1.2)

 

EWR 127-1 compliance with Range Safety approved Safety Equivalency Report

EWR 127-1 compliance with no Safety Equivalency Reports

 

EWR 127-1 compliance with Range Safety approved Safety Equivalency Report

EWR 127-1 compliance with no Safety Equivalency Reports

 

Total compliance with EWR-127-1

SAME

38. Flight Safety

 

Provide real time telemetry data to detect a violation of flight criteria, and terminate the flight throughout all launch phases

   

Provide real time telemetry data to detect a violation of flight criteria, and terminate the flight throughout all launch phases

SAME

 

Merged with safety req't (#37)

Merged with safety req't (#37)

39. Flight Termination System

 

0.999 reliable (at a 95% confidence level

   

0.999 reliable (at a 95% confidence level

SAME

 

Merged with safety req't (#37)

Merged with safety req't (#37)

40. System Security (4.3.2)

 

Provide secure and survivable systems as necessary

SAME

 

Provide secure and survivable systems as necessary

   

Comply with intent of AFI 31-101

SAME

41. Recovery and Disposal

 

Provide for safe disposal or recovery

SAME

 

Provide for safe disposal or recovery

SAME

 

Combined with Parameter 43.

Combined with Parameter 43

42. LEO or Suborbital Trajectories

 

IAW International Agreements

TBR

 

IAW International Agreements

SAME

 

Combined with Parameter 43

Combined with Parameter 43

43. Orbital Debris (4.3.3)

 

IAW International Agreements

TBR

 

Comply with National, DoD and USSPACECOM orbital debris minimize policies

SAME

 

Comply with National, DoD and USSPACECOM orbital debris minimize policies

De-orbit upper stages where appropriate and reasonable

44. Natural Environments

 

Tolerant of environment during pre-launch and launch ops

TBR

 

Tolerant of environment during pre-launch and launch and post launch ops

SAME

 

Deleted

Deleted

45. Induced Environments

 

Withstand environmental and structural extremes associated with transport through launch

TBR

 

Withstand environmental and structural extremes associated with transport through launch

SAME

 

Deleted

Deleted

46. Environmental Constraints (4.3.4)

 

Comply with all applicable laws and regulations

Minimize use and generation of hazardous materials

 

Comply with all applicable laws and regulations

Minimize use and generation of hazardous materials

 

Comply with all applicable laws and regulations

Minimize use and generation of hazardous materials

REQUIREMENTS CORRELATION MATRIX

PART II

SUPPORTING RATIONALE FOR SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

For the thresholds and objectives we have used detailed analysis and military judgment based on operational experience with Titan II, Delta, Atlas, and Titan IV to determine the actual values. The key performance parameters are hard requirements that must be met. Cost savings are an important requirement that the other requirements are traded against. The thresholds and objectives allow the contractors maximum trade space during all phases of this acquisition. The key performance parameters are highlighted with an (*).

Parameter 1a. Mass to Orbit. * The EELV performance requirement "Mass to Orbit" results from a consolidation of specific payload masses and associated delivery orbits which must be attained to meet the DoD portion of the National Mission Model (NMM). The complete list of masses and orbits is contained in the Payload Database Document. The NMM is our plan for launch execution to meet National Security Objectives and maintain our access to space. In addition, current and past experience has given us the knowledge that satellites continue to evolve and grow in size. Analysis shows that payload mass has historically grown on the order of 3% per year (Delta 3.6%, Atlas 2.5% and Titan IV 3.1%). This indicates that our spacelift system must be designed to allow for an eventual payload mass growth. The path to this additional capacity needs to be designed into the system and will be exercised if and when the payloads actually do grow in mass. Based on this experience, we anticipate that a 15% payload mass growth is an appropriate objective for our system. The HLV missions for the EELV have already included some growth in their payload numbers; this is why the objective is lower then the MLV objective.

Parameter 1b. Mass to Orbit. The EELV performance requirement "Mass to Orbit" results from civil payload masses and associated delivery identified in the NMM. The complete list of masses and orbits is contained in the Payload Database Document.

  1. Performance Margin. The 30 Nov 93 Spacelift Mission Area Plan states, "Design and operating margins are two critical factors affecting operability." Adequate performance and structural margin should be designed into the launch vehicle so that the vehicle is not operated at its design limits. The current launch systems operate with performance margins approaching zero percent. The additional margin provides a robust system, enhanced reliability, performance and safety. It precludes trying to squeeze out the last bit of performance at the expense of design/process escapes and associated schedule delays. Some missions today require us to hot-fire the engines ahead of time and "tag" them to specific missions. We will not do this with EELV.
  1. Flight Performance Reserve. Identifies the required reserve available "at flight time" to account for deviations in flight trajectory. Typically satisfied in the current systems by additional fuel in the upperstage.
  1. Orbital Parameter Accuracy. The design of each payload determines the orbital accuracy needed to accomplish its mission. These values are requirements laid upon the EELV system by the payloads themselves and are recorded in the Payload Database Document.
  1. Mission Reliability. The values for mission reliability come from the analysis conducted by the Aerospace Corporation, which states, to maintain a 90% availability of our constellations a spacelift system would need a mission reliability of at least 97.5%. This takes into account the probability of failure due to ground processing (includes infrastructure i.e. power, water lines, HVAC, etc.) and workmanship errors. The HLV mission reliability of 97% is due to the low number of launches.
  1. Vehicle Design Reliability. * Thresholds and objectives are the result of direction to make EELV at least as reliable as current systems. The MLV III ORD launch design reliability requirement (0.98) reflects the need to greatly improve national spacelift and specifically, the launch on need requirement. The reliability objective for heavylift is (0.98) and is cited in the Space and Missile Center 15 Nov 1991 SSD/CLX Payloads Requirements Document.
  1. Launch Pads. * Current command requirements are to reduce spacelift infrastructure, improve optimization, and provide standard interfaces to spacecraft developers. Having launch pads that are capable of launching all EELV configurations reduces the infrastructure costs.
  1. Payload Interfaces. * Current launch systems are usually modified to fit the payload. This has been a major driver in cost and timeliness. The Spacelift Requirements Study (by Aerospace Corp Aug 94) states " A key contributor towards responsiveness would be the design of common launch vehicle interfaces, this would provide the flexibility to change the launch vehicle in case of a major problem requiring extended repair time. This would also permit spacecraft to be changed, if necessary. Such flexibility decreases launch delays." Standardizing the interfaces allows for "mass production" of identical boosters without regard to what payload will eventually be mated on top. The EELV system shall enable the capability to support secondary missions, when compatible with primary mission requirements. the secondary payload is responsible for working with the primary payload for available margin and volume.
  1. Payload Separation. The launch vehicle must be able to perform a separation maneuver to avoid a collision and damage to the payload. There must be positive verification of the launch vehicle's position relative to the payload(s) to ensure no contamination and avoidance of debris.
  1. Infrastructure. The 30 Nov 93 Spacelift Mission Area Plan states "Spacelift systems, procedures, and the processes used to employ them, will be standardized to the maximum extent possible." Current command requirements are to reduce spacelift infrastructure, improve optimization, and provide standard interfaces to spacecraft developers.
  1. Operational Launch Procedures. Standard launch procedures provide for increased operability and reduced training needs. Changed to objective because the Air Force is buying a launch service and the contractor is responsible for all launch procedures.
  1. Payload Substitution. Payload substitution at appropriate times during processing allows for an increase in operational options for the launch commander. By being flexible enough to allow payload substitution the system can adapt to changes. This has been combined with the Responsiveness requirement.
  1. Payload Accommodations. The standard interfaces will provide standard and predictable payload accommodations as a basis for future payloads design. This also allows the launch vehicle to be easily interchangeable.
  1. Payload Volume Growth. The volume growth is based on historical data provided by Aerospace.
  1. Cost Savings. Based on results stated in the Space Launch Modernization Study and command requirement to reduce the cost of launch.
  1. Timeliness. Based on current CINCSPACE direction for determination of "on-time" launch. The command standard is that 80% of launches be "on-time".
  1. Responsiveness. The longest ground processing timeline defines the responsiveness capability of the launch system. Satellite ground processing timelines are outside of the control of the launch system. The launch system must support the shortest planned timeline of the payloads, currently this is GPS with a 60-day processing time. However the next generation of GPS will have a ground processing time of around 45 days and as little as 30 days in an emergency. EELV responsiveness must be better than any current system since it must be available for all launches.
  1. Launch Rate. Based on AFSPC/DOSL analysis of the NMM for the year 2002 and beyond. Projects the throughput based on projected launch requirements.
  1. Resiliency. To enable continuous access to space the spacelift system must be able to recover from a downing event with a minimum backlog to the DoD portion of the NMM launch schedule. To account for unplanned launches during contingencies or constellation outages, the system needs to have an additional throughput capacity to ensure a minimum schedule backlog. The threshold value will enable a recovery from a 6-month stand down in about 5 years worst case and the objective will enable a recovery within one year.
  1. Crisis Response. Based on current CINCSPACE direction for determination of "crisis replenishment" and allows the system to surge to meet increased launch requirements. The objective values are based on the probability of an unpredicted failure and the need to augment key constellations during a crisis or contingency.
  1. Mission Ready Hold. Deleted.
  1. Launch Recycle. To provide a higher probability of launch per attempt, the system needs to be able to quickly recycle to standard hold in the event that something is preventing the launch attempt.
  1. Launch Ready Hold. Deleted.
  1. Next Day Readiness. Deleted.
  1. Launch Abort. Deleted.
  1. Supportability/Maintainability. A supportable and maintainable launch system is essential if we are going to operate at low cost on a continuous basis.
  2. Flight Worthy Hardware. Deleted.
  1. Standard Technical Data. Access to technical data is required for all government personnel performing insight. Commercial manuals are acceptable.
  1. Pre-Flight Diagnostics. Deleted.
  1. In-Flight Diagnostics. Deleted.
  1. Pre-Flight Data. Deleted.

  1. In-Flight Data. Provides launch termination capability and ensures safety parameters can be met. Allows analysis of flight data for responsive anomaly resolution.
  1. Range Interface. The launch systems must be compatible with existing or planned systems at each of the ranges.
  1. Type 1 Training. Contractor introductory training necessary to establish integrated AF system training program.
  1. AETC Initial Qualification Training. Identifies AF requirement for initial system training.
  1. System Safety. Provides general safety requirements. Range safety requirements are contained within EWR 127-1 and must be met to allow a system to launch. Data needs to be provided throughout the boost phase to allow range safety to terminate the flight if it is outside of its safety parameters. The overall flight termination system is required to have the .999 reliability at the 95 percent confidence level (EWR 127-1).
  1. Range Safety. Range safety requirements are contained in EWR 127-1 and must be met to allow a system to launch.
  1. Flight Safety. Combined with parameter 37
  1. Flight Termination System. Combined with parameter 37.
  2. System Security. Identifies necessary security and survivability requirements.
  3. Recovery and Disposal. Combined with Parameter 43.
  4. Low Earth Orbit or Suborbital Trajectories. Combined with Parameter 43
  5. Orbital Debris. Necessary to specify National and DoD minimization policies. Identifies disposal and recovery requirements IAW international agreements.
  6. Natural Environments. Deleted.
  7. Induced Environments. Deleted.
  8. Environmental Constraints. The spacelift system must meet all applicable environmental laws and regulations. It must also minimize the use and generation of hazardous materials in all phases of operations.

REQUIREMENTS CORRELATION MATRIX

PART III

CHANGES TO SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

(Key Performance Parameters are highlighted with an (*))

Parameter 1a. Mass to Orbit. * Changes in the objective values for several missions were made as a result of analysis of current requirements and the i9nclusion of some growth in the basic mass to orbit requirement. SBIR-LEO and GPS-IIF were updated with the latest program estimates.

Parameter 1b. Mass to Orbit. Updated NASA missions; GEO, Sun-Sync, and Planetary. These are not identified as key performance parameters.

Parameter 2. Performance Margin. Combined payload mass growth with performance margin.

Parameter 3. Flight Performance Reserve. No change.

Parameter 4. Orbital Parameter Accuracy. No change.

Parameter 5. Mission Reliability. No change.

Parameter 6. Vehicle Design Reliability. * No change.

Parameter 7. Launch Pads. * Reworded but did not change the requirement. Still require HLV capability at both coasts from the same pad.

Parameter 8. Payload Interfaces. * Change includes the work and data that the Standard Interface Working Group has produced.

Parameter 9. Payload Separation. The launch vehicle must be able to perform a separation maneuver to avoid a collision and damage to the payload. There must be positive verification of the launch vehicles position relative to the payload to ensure no contamination and avoidance of debris. Requirement is incorporated in the standard interface requirements.

Parameter 10. Infrastructure. Changed to reflect change in operations from oversight to insight roles and CONOPS update.

Parameter 11. Operational Launch Procedures. Changed to reflect change in operations from oversight to insight roles and CONOPS update.

Parameter 12. Payload Substitution. Combined with responsiveness requirements.

Parameter 13. Payload Accommodations. No change.

Parameter 14. Payload Volume Growth. Combined with performance margin.

Parameter 15. Cost Savings. No change.

Parameter 16. Timeliness. No change.

Parameter 17. Responsiveness. Combined payload substitution requirements to better address both requirements.

Parameter 18. Launch Rate. Adjusted for the latest National Mission Model.

Parameter 19. Resiliency. Better defined based on the latest National Mission Model.

Parameter 20. Crisis Response. No change.

Parameter 21. Mission Ready Hold. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 22. Launch Recycle. Changed to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 23. Launch Ready Hold. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts. Requirement was seen as a "how-to". Under a launch service approach, the contractor is responsible for getting the rocket safely off the ground IAW EWR 127-1.

Parameter 24. Next Day Readiness. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts. . Requirement was seen as a "how-to". Under a launch service approach, the contractor is responsible for getting the rocket safely off the ground IAW EWR 127-1.

Parameter 25. Launch Abort. Combined with parameter to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts. . Requirement was seen as a "how-to". Under a launch service approach, the contractor is responsible for getting the rocket safely off the ground IAW EWR 127-1.

Parameter 26. Supportability/Maintainability. Changed to reflect a launch service approach where the contractor is responsible for all maintenance of the system.

Parameter 27. Flight Worthy Hardware. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts. . Requirement was seen as a "how-to". Under a launch service approach, the contractor is responsible for the hardware. The Air Force never owns the hardware.

Parameter 28. Standard Technical Data. Changed to reflect the EELV CONOPS.

Parameter 29. Pre-Flight Diagnostics. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 30. In-Flight Diagnostics. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 31. Pre-Flight Data. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 32. In-Flight Data. Changed to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 33. Range Interface. No change.

Parameter 34. Type 1 Training. No change.

Parameter 35. AETC Initial Qualification Training. No change.

Parameter 36. System Safety. Combined all safety requirements into one paragraph. Eliminated redundant statement. Compliance with EWR 127-1 is mandatory.

Parameter 37. Range Safety. Combined all safety requirements into one paragraph. Eliminated redundant statement. Compliance with EWR 127-1 is mandatory.

Parameter 38. Flight Safety. Combined all safety requirements into one paragraph. Eliminated redundant statement. Compliance with EWR 127-1 is mandatory.

Parameter 39. Flight Termination System. Combined all safety requirements into one paragraph. Eliminated redundant statement. Compliance with EWR 127-1 is mandatory.

Parameter 40. System Security. Updated to reflect true security needs based on interchanges with the contractors.

Parameter 41. Recovery and Disposal. Combined with parameter 43 to eliminate redundancy and better clarify the overall requirements.

Parameter 42. Low Earth Orbit or Suborbital Trajectories. Combined with parameter 43 to eliminate redundancy and better clarify the overall requirements.

Parameter 43. Orbital Debris. Combined with parameter 41/42 to eliminate redundancy and better clarify the overall requirements.

Parameter 44. Natural Environments. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 45. Induced Environments. Deleted to reflect change in acquisition strategy and operations concepts.

Parameter 46. Environmental Constraints. No change.

APPENDIX D

REQUIREMENTS METHODOLOGY

1.1 Proposed System.

EELV is a significant government investment to improve our spacelift capability. Our mission requirements span from delivering payloads to standardizing launch infrastructure and processes. EELV is a new way of doing business. We are taking a quality approach with this system. We want to take the best practices from government and industry and benchmark all the processes from factory to pad. We are very interested in changing today's practices by removing all on pad manufacturing and returning it to the factories. We want launch vehicles or their components and payloads to show up "flight worthy" at the sites, so there is only a minimum amount of processing required prior to launch.

1.1.1 Requirements.

In addition to the key performance parameters, cost savings, timeliness, responsiveness and launch rate (see Table 1) are important requirements. Each contractor will optimize the requirements for their system. For each of these specific parameters, we have defined the variables, established methodologies and accomplished analysis to provide requirement thresholds and objectives.

 

REQUIREMENT

THRESHOLD

OBJECTIVE

MASS TO LEO*

17,000 LBS

+15%

MASS TO POLAR 1*

4,400-7,000 LBS

+15%

MASS TO POLAR 2*

41,000 LBS

+5%

MASS TO SEMI-SYNC*

2,500-4,725 LBS

+15%

MASS TO GTO*

6,100-8,500 LBS

+15%

MASS TO MOLNIYA*

7,000 LBS

+15%

MASS TO GEO*

13,500 LBS

+5%

VEHICLE DESIGN RELIABILITY *

98%

>98%

STANDARD LAUNCH PADS*

ABLE TO LAUNCH ALL CONFIGURATIONS

SAME

STANDARD PAYLOAD INTERFACE *

STANDARD PAYLOAD INTERFACE FOR EACH VEHICLE CLASS

ONE STANDARD PAYLOAD INTERFACE

COST SAVINGS: REDUCTION OVER CURRENT SYSTEMS

25%

50%

TIMELINESS: PROBABILITY OF LAUNCH WITHIN 10 DAYS

80%

90%

RESPONSIVENESS:

45 DAYS (MLV)

90 DAYS (HLV)

30 DAYS (MLV)

60 DAYS (HLV)

LAUNCH RATE: DURING A 12 MONTH PERIOD

14

26

* DENOTES KEY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

   

Table 3. Requirements

1.1.1.1 Performance.

Performance is defined as the ability to deliver the required mass to the desired orbit. This requires launching all the Government payloads scheduled for EELV in the national mission model for the period FY01 to FY20. Since the national mission model is based on near term information, missions occurring beyond ten years are an estimate of continuing mission need. We are trying to meet the windows for payload block changes, like GPS IIF and SBIRS, in the FY01 and FY02 time frame.

1.1.1.1.1 Variables.

The variables that affect this requirement are the satellite mass, orbital destination, orbital accuracy, payload growth, performance margin, performance variations and cost of delivery.

 

 

 

 

1.1.1.1.2 Methodology.

Performance is comprised of two main components: mass to orbit and orbital parameter accuracy. Mass to orbit is simply quantified as the number of pounds of payload the system can deliver to the desired orbit. Orbital accuracy is a measure of the allowable variation for the intended orbital parameters. Our methodology defines the total mass performance relationships (Figure 2), identifies the mass requirement that must be met, and the desired orbits for the payloads. EELV has to be capable of launching a wide range of masses to these very different orbits. There are seven fundamental orbits (Figure 3) that EELV must achieve to support the DoD portion of the NMM, plus three orbits to support civil missions. Analysis also shows that payload mass has historically grown on the order of 3% per year (Delta 3.6%, Atlas 2.5% and Titan IV 3.1%). This indicates that our spacelift system must have a designed path to allow for this possible future payload mass growth. In addition, based on previous systems delivered, the system should have performance margin to ensure operability.

Figure 2. Total Mass Performance Relationships

1.1.1.1.3 Requirement.

The EELV system shall deliver, as a key performance parameter, the required mass to the desired orbit. As an objective, the EELV should have a planned path to lift 15 % more mass for the medium variant and 5% for the heavy missions (Polar 2 and GEO). A Performance Margin of 2% (HLV) to 7% (MLV) is desired to create a robust system.

Figure 3. Government Orbits

1.1.1.2 Mission Reliability.

Mission reliability is defined as the ability to complete the spacelift mission at a success rate to sustain constellation availability. There are several ways to calculate mission reliability and each contractor will provide the detailed methodology they used.

1.1.1.2.1 Variables.

The variables for mission reliability (Figure 4) are: (1) vehicle design reliability (the key performance parameter); and (2) process (manufacturing, infrastructure, and ground processing of the vehicle). There is also the cost to increase reliability and the cost of failure.

Figure 4. Mission Design Reliability Methodology

1.1.1.2.2 Methodology.

The first element, vehicle design reliability, is the product of: structure and mechanical reliability; propulsion and thrust vector control reliability; avionics and guidance reliability and the electrical power subsystem reliability along with the reliability (probability of success) for each staging event. Design issues are typically the most costly to correct and can result in repeated failures. Therefore, a major focus of analysis and modeling must go into determining not only the sub-component reliability, but a thorough understanding of their interaction within the system as well. The second element, processing reliability, is more difficult to analyze but must take into account and seek to reduce mission failures caused by infrastructure, ground processing or workmanship errors. Data shows that almost 20% of U.S. spacelift failures were attributed to launch site ground processing or poor workmanship (during manufacturing). This is a large enough percentage that we need to take it into account for our mission reliability. The intent for EELV is to correct these deficiencies by ensuring we control our processes. These failures can be categorized as process escapes. As such, they are one-of-a-kind errors and can normally be corrected if detected. Lack of sufficient cooling or sufficiently clean air to a payload can cause payload failure. Our goal is to get to the "flat" portion of the reliability curve where for each new dollar invested, there is virtually no improvement in reliability (Figure 5). The analysis shows that 98% vehicle design reliability and 97.5% mission reliability or better is essential to keep our constellations sustained over a long period of time. Due to the small number of heavy missions (15 launches in 20 years) only 97% mission reliability is required for the heavy missions. In our cost methodology, our goal is to deliver the highest increase in reliability per unit of cost. We know that cost accelerates when there is a launch vehicle failure or the payload fails to reach its destination. The cost of failure is high because it means a replacement satellite and launch vehicle plus any costs associated with determining the cause of the mission failure. Therefore, we want to operate at the best reliability that we can afford that still maintains the warfighter's constellations at the greatest availability.

Figure 5. Reliability Goal

1.1.1.2.3 Requirement.

The key performance parameter is design reliability with a threshold of 98% and objective of better than 98%. In addition, the mission reliability shall be a minimum of 97.5% for all but the two heavy missions (Polar 2 and GEO) which should have a minimum of 97%.

1.1.1.3 Standardization.

Standardization is defined as the optimum use of standard pads, payload interfaces, flight hardware, ground hardware, infrastructure, facilities and processes. The lack of standardization in current launch systems is seen to be a major reason for operability, reliability and cost inadequacies. In many cases, payload interfaces (both vehicle and facility-related) are customized for each payload, launch vehicle engines are tagged for specific missions, ground operations differ from mission to mission, launch vehicle hardware varies from mission to mission and ground operations differ from facility to facility, even for the same launch vehicles. For the non-key parameters, we are relying on the contractors to determine how the design and development for the EELV should be conducted to permit an optimal degree of standardization.

1.1.1.3.1 Variables.

The variables for standardization are the degree of standardization for pads, interfaces, hardware, infrastructure and processes compared to cost.

1.1.1.3.2 Methodology.

Our goal is to standardize vehicles, infrastructure, equipment and processes to the extent that development and operation costs are optimized (Figure 6). We think there are cost savings by moving up the curve of standardization to an optimum degree that will be determined by the EELV contractors. Key elements of standardization are standard launch pads and payload interfaces. Ensuring the standardization of these elements will ensure cost savings by reducing infrastructure requirements and lowering the cost equation of both payload (design for integration) and booster. Additionally, we believe that these elements will significantly aid operability.

Figure 6. Standardization Goal

1.1.1.3.3 Requirement.

As a threshold, launch pads shall be able to launch all configurations of EELV and the system shall provide standard interfaces for each vehicle class. The objective for payload interfaces is that there should be one standard interface. These are key parameters. The system should also provide common facilities, standard operations processes and logistics at the launch sites as well.

1.1.1.4 Cost.

The cost savings requirement is to reduce the annual fixed costs and the life cycle cost of launching the government portion of the National Mission Model. Total cost of launching the mission model from 2002-2020 is estimated using current launch system versus EELV costs.

1.1.1.4.1 Variables.

All of the requirements involve cost and their objective will be traded against cost, but the major drivers are performance, reliability, standardization, timeliness, responsiveness, and launch rate. Traditional costs are captured in terms of recurring and non-recurring cost. By optimizing these to the extent they are affordable, we can achieve significant savings over what we have today.

1.1.1.4.2 Methodology.

We expect industry to recommend the right mix of improvements in each of the variables and the resultant cost savings we can expect. Additionally, we have provided industry with a baseline cost estimate of what it would cost in FY95 dollars to launch the missions in the National Mission Model (2002-2020) using today's systems. Based on the SLMP, significant cost savings could be realized by an investment that evolved current launch systems and reduced niche markets. Although it's not a key performance parameter, cost reduction is paramount in this program.

1.1.1.4.3 Requirement.

The threshold is 25% with an objective of 50% reduction in the life cycle costs and annual fixed costs over the estimates of the current systems.

1.1.1.5 Timeliness (Schedule Dependability).

Timeliness is defined as the ability of the system to consistently launch when planned to maintain the throughput required to launch the EELV portion of the NMM.

1.1.1.5.1 Variables.

The variables that affect timeliness are ground processing of the booster and satellites, supportability and maintainability, facilities, range availability, and weather.

1.1.1.5.2 Methodology.

Timeliness is the measure of launching when scheduled and can be defined as the probability of launching. We have looked historically at the causes of launch delays and they are the variables listed above. Industry will evaluate the means to mitigate the effects of facility, booster, and payload problems that occur during the launch process and design the system to allow ground operations during normal weather conditions including lightning and winds. The EELV system will have minimal launch infrastructure making the Timeliness requirement much more important than in past systems. As part of ground processing, infrastructure reliability is key to ensuring that the infrastructure is not down for unscheduled maintenance or repair. In addition because of the anticipated launch rate, the amount of time spent on the pad must be limited to avoid impacting the next scheduled launch. Industry will optimize the EELV system to provide a high enough probability of launch per attempt and the ability to create sufficient launch attempts to meet our launch schedule.

1.1.1.5.3 Requirement.

The EELV shall have a threshold for timeliness of 80% cumulative probability of launch within 10 days after the accountable launch date which is confirmed at least 90 days prior to launch. The objective is to have a 90% cumulative probability of launch within 10 days after the accountable launch date.

1.1.1.6 Responsiveness (Call-up).

Responsiveness is the amount of time between notification and launch for an unscheduled mission. It is the optimization of operational timelines to maintain warfighting constellations at the lowest cost and is crucial in reducing Recycle Time.

1.1.1.6.1 Variables.

The variables that affect this requirement are payload and vehicle processing and timeliness.

Figure 7. Satellite Ground Processing Times

1.1.1.6.2 Methodology.

Currently the strongest overriding variable in determining Responsiveness is payload processing time and ultimately it determines the amount of time it takes to launch an unscheduled mission (The call-up process is initiated with a notification of a failure or impending failure, or with the need to augment an existing constellation). As soon as the notification is received the shortest Recycle Time must still contain the payload ground processing times and on orbit check out times before that replacement is operational. The launch system ground and on-pad processing time should be no longer than the shortest payload processing time (Figure 7). The current generation of GPS satellites takes 60 days to process before it is ready for launch and others such as DSCS can take up to a year after notification before it is ready to launch. Satellite owners realize the launch vehicle is not the limiting factor and are trying to improve their own responsiveness. The next generation of GPS will have a ground processing time of around 45 days, with the possibility of 30 days in an emergency. Because of constellation management planning, these processing timelines are key to projecting vehicle responsiveness timelines. Injecting an unscheduled launch into the launch manifest will likewise have to be studied.

1.1.1.6.3 Requirement.

The threshold is the ability to call-up and launch a medium EELV mission within 45 days (30 days, objective) or a heavy EELV within 90 days (60 days, objective) and still meet the timeliness requirement for that launch (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Responsiveness Timelines

1.1.1.7 Launch Rates.

The launch rate is the number of missions that can be performed in a given amount of time. This is usually measured in launches per year, but can be broken down to the number of days between each launch. The total capacity of the launch system is comprised of Basic Launch Rate, Resiliency and Crisis Response (Figure 9).

 

Figure 9. Launch Rate Relationships

1.1.1.7.1 Variables.

The variables for launch rates are the National Mission Model, ground processing, facility capacities, the number of launch pads, range availability, mission reliability, the degree of standardization, weather and other launch delays.

1.1.1.7.2 Methodology.

The Basic Launch Rate is considered the highest sustainable planned rate, with routine operations and normal maintenance. It is derived from the National Mission Model and reflects the most planned missions in any single year. The second component of total launch capacity is Resiliency. It is the additional missions that can be added to the basic launch rate and provides the maximum sustainable launch rate (usually achieved by going to three full shifts). This allows the system to compensate for unplanned events such as increases in future launch rates but more importantly it is used to recover from mission stand-downs in limited amount of time, between 1 and 5 years. The final component is Crisis Response, which provides added mission capability, above resiliency, during a crisis and supports the launch to sustain and launch to augment strategies. This peak rate is considered non-sustainable (no planned maintenance) and used only for short periods of time. Capacity above the threshold value allows for expansion when a higher volume of launches is required. It will also reduce the time required to get back on schedule should a downing event occur. These launch rates are directly related to efficient and reliable ground processing and are only possible with on time launches. The ground infrastructure must support the required launch rate. In current systems this is one of the key limiting factors of capacity. Processing and launch rates determine how the system can support deployment and sustainment of constellations. If the constellation sustainment needs exceed ground processing and launch capacity, then either more facilities must be built or the launch system must be modified to sustain the needed launch rate.

1.1.1.7.3 Requirement.

The Launch Rate (the highest planned rate) is the EELV portion of the National Mission Model and it varies for each coast. As a threshold, including Resiliency and Crisis Response, the EELV system must provide for 14 launches for both coasts. Additionally, the system must provide for the maximum rates for each class and coast (not cumulative) (e.g. CCAS 11 medium, 1 heavy and VAFB 6 medium, 1 heavy). As an objective the overall Launch Rate should include the capacity to meet the Resiliency and the Crisis Response objectives for a total of 26 possible launches, (Table 4). The breakdown of the total is: CCAS 15 medium, 2 heavy and VAFB 7 medium, 2 heavy.

Table 4. Launch Rates

1.1.2 Approach.

The objective of the EELV program is to design and develop a spacelift system, evolved from current launch vehicle systems, or major subsystems. This new "evolved" system will satisfy the spacelift needs of the Air Force and launch the Government portion of the NMM with high mission assurance. The Air Force also expects a major cost reduction through increased production and launch rates (by launching both government and commercial payloads), and lower operating costs due to reduced manpower and standardization in space launch infrastructure.

1.1.3 Efficiency and Effectiveness.

The EELV system will improve efficiency and effectiveness over current systems. It will launch the EELV portion of the NMM with at least a 97.5% mission reliability and 97% for heavy missions. Analysis indicates that this reliability is essential to maintain high satellite availability and health of the constellations. Additionally, this means that a concerted effort will be made to hold down total processing times (vehicle and payload) to meet the launch schedule without creating a launch backlog. It is incumbent upon both payload developers and launch vehicle manufacturers to deliver "flight worthy" systems that can be integrated and processed in significantly less time than is experienced today.

1.2 Spacelift General Attributes.

1.2.1 Attributes.

To assure access to space for national security payloads and to support the broad range of civil and commercial space transportation needs, the EELV system must possess the general attributes described in the following paragraphs. It is intended that the system operate within applicable laws and regulations (without waivers) and minimize the use and generation of hazardous materials.

1.2.2 National Requirements.

These attributes flow down into a number of functional needs as depicted in the figure below (Figure 10). These form the basis of the requirements described in Section 4 of this document and are derived from the multi-agency National Spacelift Requirements Process supporting the entire DoD, Civil, Commercial and Intelligence communities.

 

Figure 10. EELV Requirements Derived from National Spacelift Requirements Process (NSRP) Functional Needs

1.2.2.1 Capable.

The EELV system must be capable of effectively deploying the broad range of payloads, including multiple payloads (if required), to intended mission orbits. In order to accomplish this, the payload must meet the standard interface requirements of the launch vehicle. The launch vehicle and system must provide standard payload interfaces; simple payload integration; timely payload substitution capability; adequate ground and in-flight payload services; environmental protection; and robust environmental tolerance. It must also be flexible enough to accommodate payloads that may require limited unique requirements, security requirements, and longer processing timelines without adversely impacting the overall responsiveness of the system. The system must also be capable of a continuous long term launch rate under routine operations.

1.2.2.2 Operable.

The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle will have characteristics consistent with its intended operational concept. It must be supportable, maintainable, able to operate using existing and planned spacelift range systems, and responsive enough to meet demands of our launch strategies. Nominally, accountable launch dates are assigned some 12-18 months in advance and are confirmed within 90 days of launch date. Consistent with the operational concept for EELV, the CINCSPACE or 14 AF/CC will issue a Launch Execute Order to begin preparations for launch. This order requires the launch to occur within a window of 10 days after the accountable launch date. If it appears the launch will slip outside of its 10 day window, a decision will be made to continue launch attempts or to reschedule and allow the next launch to proceed. Additionally, EELV will support all Government payloads in the NMM manifested for EELV starting in FY 01. The system will have the throughput capacity to accelerate launch processing operations to accommodate recovery following launch standdown and rapid payload deployment scenarios. EELV must have the ability to quickly and dependably respond to changing missions. It must accommodate anticipated national security payload launch requirements. It should also be responsive enough to support increased launch rates that may be needed to recover from spacecraft or launch vehicle failures, or to respond to increased on-orbit needs for crisis response or reconstitution.

1.2.2.3 Reliable.

EELV must have at least a 97.5 % mission reliability (97% for the heavy missions) and a 98% design reliability to achieve high mission assurance for Air Force Space Command and payload owner/operators.

1.2.2.4 Economical.

EELV must, as a minimum, provide at least a 25% reduction in life cycle and annual fixed costs relative to existing launch systems. It must achieve a reduction in the investment required by the nation for spacelift and meet SECAF's goals to be affordable and routine.

1.2.3 Launch Strategies.

Air Force spacelift operations are responsive to the needs of users through three basic operational launch strategies. These strategies, defined by the purpose of the launch (or series of launches), include launches to deploy, sustain, and augment satellite constellations in support of U.S. armed forces in the field. For all scheduled missions (launches to deploy and launches to sustain based on predicted satellite failure), the Government will endeavor to finalize the launch date 90 days prior to scheduled launch. For unscheduled missions (launches to augment and launches to sustain based on unpredicted satellite failure) the Government will issue a launch call up (45-day threshold for medium vehicle and 90-day threshold for the heavy vehicle) which initiates the payload and vehicle processing. These strategies focus on the health of the satellite constellation and the urgency of need as the drivers for CINCSPACE and the 14th Air Force Commander to issue a Launch Execute Order.

1.2.3.1 Launch to Deploy.

This strategy implements a launch, or series of launches, to initially achieve a satellite system Designed Operational Capability. This includes initial constellation deployments and research and development launches. The launch to deploy strategy uses a launch on schedule approach and launches are executed per the current launch schedule.

1.2.3.2 Launch to Sustain.

This strategy implements replacement of satellites that fail abruptly or reach the end of their mission life. Under this strategy, satellites predicted to fail would drive routine launch operations to plan, execute and schedule, via the current launch schedule, replacement launches for operational constellations. For satellites failing abruptly, this strategy would drive a call-up and an unscheduled launch to immediately replace the failed asset.

1.2.3.3 Launch to Augment.

This strategy increases the constellation size above the Designed Operational Capability in order to provide increased capability during war, crisis, or contingency. This strategy will be considered in conjunction with non-space or non-launch alternatives, and if elected, generates a call-up and an unscheduled launch to immediately augment satellites in a constellation.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list