EELV Ops Requirements Document

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