----------.--.;------- -----------------

EVOLUTION OF THE FLORIDA LAUNCH SITE ARCHITECTUREEMBRACING MULTIPLE CUSTOMERS, ENHANCING LAUNCH OPPORTUNITIES

Scott Colloredo, Chief Architecture & Integration Management, Kennedy Space Center, FL USAscott.t.colloredo@nasa.gov

James Gray, Program Director, Avatar Technologies Melbourne, FL USA

james.a.gray@nasa.gov

AbstractThe impending conclusion of the Space Shuttle Program and the Constellation Program cancellation unveiled in theFY2011 President's budget created a large void for human spaceflight capability and launch activity from theKennedy Space Center (KSC). This void created an opportunity to re-architect the launch site to be moreaccommodating to the future NASA heavy lift and commercial space industry. To satisfy that need, the 21 51 CenturyGround Systems Program was created, with a goal to evolve the heritage capabilities into a more affordable andflexible launch complex. This case study will discuss the KSC architecture evolution from the trade studies to selectprimary launch site locations for future customers, to improving infrastructure; promoting environmentalremediation/compliance; improving offline processing, manufacturing, and recovery; developing range interface andcontrol services with the US Air Force, and developing modernization efforts for integration and launch of smallclass to heavy class launch vehicles. The architecture studies will steer how to best invest limited modernizationfunding from initiatives like the 21 CGSP and other programs.

Background

The Kennedy Space Center has had a long anddistinguished history in human exploration. The1950s brought the development of ICBM row fordeveloping the earliest launch vehicles. The 1960sand 1970s brought the Saturn V/Apollo programs forreaching the moon. Since 1983 we have seen thespace shuttle program at KSC.

The last few years have brought significant changes,setting a new course for KSC and the surroundinglaunch infrastructure referred to as the FloridaLaunch Site (FLS). On February I, 20 I0, PresidentObama released his budget for Fiscal Year 2011

(FY II) and with it, came the announcement that theConstellation Program for returning man to the Moonand Mars was canceled.

A new vision was established to promote commercialdevelopment for both cargo and crew transportationto the International Space Station and beyond LowEarth Orbit (LEO). NASA was challenged to use theentrepreneurial spirit of the commercial industry toprovide more options for human exploration and toreduce the cost for accessing the far reaches.

FYII also brought the Congressional AuthorizationBill introducing the Space Launch System (SLS) andMulti-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) for launching

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110009975 2018-02-21T00:53:30+00:00Z

and transporting astronauts beyond LEO. WhileCongress authorized these new developments, theAppropriation Bill to fund these new efforts did notmaterialize in FYII. Under a yearlong continuingresolution, NASA began to plan for the closeout ofthe Constellation Program while fundingdevelopment activities applicable to Constellation,but also extensible to the authorized SLS and MPCVprograms.

1980's - 2000'sSpace Shuttle - Launch Complex 39

Florida Launch Site

The idea for establishing a separate program toenhance the Florida launch capability was introducedwith the FYII President's Budget. The new budgetsubmission recognized the substantial contributionthe commercial space market could play in spaceexploration. The direction was given to fundinfrastructure improvements and to encourage thecommercial entrepreneurial spirit to provide newcapabilities while reducing the cost to access space.

2

The new FLS was established to lay the groundarchitecture to support human exploration after theretirement of the Space Shuttle and prepare for thenext generation Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft. The21 51 Century Ground Systems Program (21 CGSP),was chartered to look at the KSC infrastructure andactively solicit commercial participation to achieveNASA's space exploration goals, while supportingAmerica's space launch industry.

The fIrst step was to solicit user needs from themultiple customers expressing an interest in usingKSC. These user needs provided the foundation forplanning the preparation of the ground infrastructurefrom the current Space Shuttle-centric focus into acapability to support multiple launch vehicles - manyoperating in non-conventional modes. The 21 CGSPintroduced fIve separate product lines to capture userneeds and prepare a roadmap for recommendinginvestments to realize the vision established by thePresident. The product lines were:

1. Florida Launch Modernization Infrastructure2. Environmental Remediation & Technologies3. Offline Manufacturing, Processing &

Recovery Systems4. Range Interface & Control Services5. Mission Focused Modernization

Florida Launch Modernization Infrastructure focusedon the supporting infrastructure, including electricalpower, water, sewer, Heating Ventilation and AirConditioning, and general facilities needs.

The Environmental & Remediation Technologiesproposed investments to promote clean launchoperations and to ensure proper environmentalassessment/compliance was conducted to support themultiple users to be accommodated under the FLS.

The Offline Manufacturing, Processing, andRecovery Systems proposed investments to supportmanufacturing of space hardware (e.g., Orionspacecraft), processing of launch vehicles/spacecraft,and recovery of launch vehicle segments/motors orspacecraft after reentry.

The Range Interface & Control Services product linefocused on supporting the FLS need for Command,Control, Communication, and Range (C3R) servicesto support multiple users with a quick turnaroundbetween customers.

The Mission Focused Modernization product linesupported the development of the large infrastructurerequired to support space exploration beyond LEO.

This product line is responsible for developing theVehicle Assembly Building (VAB), Mobile Launchplatforms (ML/MLP), and Launch Complex (LC) 39A & B. The product line also captures the needs ofsmaller class vehicles, including the proposedconversion of the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) intoa horizontal launch and landing capability.

Architecture Refinement Cycle

Developing a new FLS for multiple customers withdifferent objectives and unique from the SpaceShuttle-designed architecture required a deliberateprocess for conducting trade studies for determiningthe best approach for modernizing KSC. This newprocess was called the Architectures RefinementCycle (ARC). Each ARC was conducted over a 3-4month period. The conclusion of each ARC cycleresulted in a "point of departure" as a basis forbeginning the next ARC.

Offline and Pad Servicing

The first ARC, ARC 1.0, provided the initial estimateof resources required to transition from the SpaceShuttle to the Florida Launch Site addressing

3

commercial needs and a NASA vehicle that would gobeyond LEO. The estimate was used to develop thefunding request beginning with FY11. ARC 1.0 wasconcluded March 30,2010.

The ARC 2.0 traded where the primary launch sitewould be for this new mission. The FLS determinedLaunch Complex (LC) 39B would be the primarylaunch site with heavy lift launch vehicle as the"anchor tenant." LC-39A would be used to supportother commercial users and test vehicles. The CapeCanaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS)/FloridaSpaceport Authority's Space Launch Complex (SLC)- 36 would be used for small test vehicles orsounding rockets. ARC 2.0 was concluded July 30,2010.

Heavy Class Launch Capability

The ARC 3.0 goal was to determine "What are thelaunch site architectures?" The architectures focusedon providing for NASA's SLS launch vehicle, theMPCV, and for multiple commercial customers. ARequest For Information submitted to industryidentified numerous needs including support in theareas of Vehicle Integration and Launch (VIL),Horizontal TakeofflHorizontal Landing (HTHL),Vertical Takeoff/Vertical Landing (VTVL), offlinemanufacturing, processing and recovery, as well as,developing the C3R infrastructure.

ARC 3.0 identified the following fmdings:

a. Designated the SLF as the Kennedy SpacePort for HTHL

b. Designated CCAFS LC-36B as the near­term VTVL site.

c. Selected the VAB as the primary vehicleprocessing facility for both SLS andCommercial Crew Vehicle.

d. Selected clean pad concept pursuingdedicated MLs for each vehicle type andcommercial will use Space Shuttle MLPs.

e. Provided offline hazardous payloadprocessing.

f. Recommended generic processingcapabilities for commercial customers inOrbital Processing Bays 1,2, and 3.

g. Recommended unallocated Space StationProcessing Facility space for non-hazardousmanufacturing and processing.

h. Continued use of the Operations andCheckout facility for MPCV processing.

ARC 3.0 concluded on November 22, 2010.

Small Vehicle Launch

ARC 4.0 focused on the question, "How is thearchitecture allocated?" The objective of this ARCwas to determine who will have primary "ownership"for each major facility and provide the operations andmaintenance funding?

The VIL team recommended the followingallocations:

a. Allocated VAB High Bay (HB) 3 toNASA's SLS launch vehicle and HB 1 forcommercial use.

b. Allocated the modified Ares 1 ML for SLSc. Allocated LC-39B for multiple mature

launch providers.d. Recommended further study to select the

most cost effective solution for the launchpad emergency egress system.

e. Acknowledged CCAFS SLC 36/46 and KSCSLF to be used for small class and lessmature test vehicles.

4

The Offline Processing and Recovery Teamrecommended the following allocations:

a. Allocated Multi-purpose Payload ProcessingFacility (MPPF) initially for non-hazardouscommercial use and then for MPCVhazardous processing after modifications.

b. Allocated Orbiter Processing Facility forcommercial hazardous payload processing.

c. Allocated Solid Rocket Booster processingfacilities for the initial SLS processing.

d. Allocated US DoD ships to be used fornominal recovery of the MPCV.

Multi-Use VAS

The C3R team recommended Launch Control CenterFiring Room (FR) I be allocated to SLS and MPCVuse and FR4 be converted into four separate controlrooms to support multiple commercial customers.

Finally, ARC 4.0 determined that the followingcritical high value, core KSC capabilities would beretained at KSC.

a. LC-39A and LC-39Bb. SLS Mobile Launcherc. MLP-3d. Crawler Transporters (CT) I and 2e. Space Station Processing Facilityf. Launch Control Centerg. Rotation, Processing and Storage Facilityh. Assembly and Refurbishment Facilityi. Vehicle Assembly Buildingj. Multi-purpose Payload Processing Facilityk. Shuttle Landing Facility

ARC 4.0 was concluded February 23, 2011.

The focus of ARC 5.0 focused on "Closing theGround Operations Architecture" with emphasis onassessing the ability to support the SLSIMPCYground infrastructure with revised fiscal guidance.ARC 6.0 confumed previous allocations of SLS andMPCY assets, in light of projected 21CGSP budgets.

Horizontal Launch &Landing

The FLS will be able to support a streamlined abilityto process the SLSIMPCY. A closed architecturewill be used to incorporate multiple users to share thecost of operating the streamlined architecture. Theseusers include other NASA programs like LaunchServices Program and Commercial Crew, as well asother government partners and commercial users.ARC 5.0 concluded June 1,2011.

MPPF(Selected)

ARC 6.0 was concluded September, 2011, with afocus on "Optimizing the FLS Architecture." Thefollowing investment decisions were made:

a. Conversion ofYAB to support SLS andcommercial use.

5

b. Conversion of LC-39B to support SLS andcommercial use.

c. Potential use ofLC-39A for commercialuse.

d. Convert Constellation Program ML for SLS.e. Convert CT for SLS and commercial use.f. Potential use of MLPs for commercial use.g. Convert SLF for horizontal launch and

landing.h. Develop Command and Control Systemsi. Modernize Range Infrastructure.J. Convert MPPF for MPCY and commercial

use.k. Modernize Infrastructure Spacecraft

processing allocation.I. Commercial assessments for potential KSC

partners.

ARC 6.0 was completed September, 2011.

Lessons Learned

The architectural trade studies to support FLS haveidentified several key objectives. The launch padswill be built with a "clean pad" concept. This meansno infrastructure will be built on the pad so as topreclude another customers from using the launchsite. This concept is similar to an airport whereaircraft may come in different sizes and differentlocation for fueling, but they are all able to use thesame basic infrastructure.

Mobile Launch Platforms will be used to provide theunique interfaces to a launch provider. Just as anaircraft has unique ground equipment to aid inservicing a particular type of aircraft, an MLP willprovide the unique interfaces to a customer whileleaving the launch pad in a clean configuration.

The dual launch pads 39 AlB will provide anopportunity to meet both NASA and commercialneeds. The larger rockets, like the SLS, will use LC­39B leaving LC-39A for the less mature rocketsconducting test operations or more hazardous launchoperations without jeopardizing the significantinvestment made in LC-39B to support the larger,more mature launch providers.

The US Air Force and NASA are teaming todetermine the needs for the future C3R infrastructure.The assessment of future user needs, coupled with anintegration of future range architectures, has allowedNASA and the US Air Force to integrate preciousresources focused on meeting the broad range ofneeds from multiple customers. The collaborationwith the Federal Aviation Administration and Space

Florida has also strengthened the synergy among therange users and the modernization plans.

Conclusion

The space shuttle program became operational onApril 12, 1981, with the launch of Columbia. After30 years of successful missions the Space Shuttleprogram came to a bitter-sweet ending whe.n Atlantisrolled to a stop on July 21, 2011. Even though thespace shuttle is no longer flying, a tremendous wealthof infrastructure and expertise remains at KSC.

The FLS is challenged to use this extensive capabilityto promote the President's vision to embracecommercial creativity/capability. Likewise, the FLScapability will be required to meet the Congressionalmandate for providing the next generation of humanspaceflight capability beyond LEO. The FLS mustprovide a cost effective launch platform for the nextgeneration of human spaceflight. Ifwe are to harnessthe true power of American ingenuity we must unitethe entrepreneurial commercial spirit with thedecades of expertise from NASA. Nowhere will thatpartnership be more evident than here, at the FLS.

Within a couple of years, the former Space Shuttleand Saturn V/Apollo LC-39B will have been fullytransformed into the world's fIrst multi-use launchpad. The launch pad will be capable of hosting anylaunch vehicle from the medium lift expendablelaunch vehicles to the massive rockets needed to sendhumans to explore the celestial destinations.

Daily operations at the launch pad will look differentthan at today's dedicated Space Shuttle pads. Insteadof spending a month or more at the launch pad,launch vehicles will be prepared in the equivalent ofhangars and will spend mere hours at the launch pad.Similar to airports, if a launch vehicle experiences aproblem it will return to its hangar for repairs insteadof tying up the critical launch pad resource.

One could envision that LC-39A could be convertedto a multi-use launch pad. The two launch padscould be capable of supporting several dozenlaunches per year. One day, a 30-story NASA rocketcould rollout to the launch pad carrying a spacecraftbound for Mars. The next day, a smaller commercialrocket could arrive at the launch pad and be loadedwith customers bound for a space station in LEO.The multi-use launch complex will lower the barrierof entry for entrepreneurial companies to the spacelaunch business, spawning a new era of innovation,opening up new markets, and eventually lowering thecost of access to space.

6

FLS must promote the commercial use of uniqueKSC/CCAFS infrastructure providing facilities thatwould be cost prohibitive for many companies tobuild unilaterally, while offering KSC theopportunity to cost share the operations andmaintenance. The FLS will team with the US AirForce, Space Florida, Commercial, and InternationalPartners to optimize resources and successfully andsafely execute the mission.

Kennedy Space Center has been actively involved indefming the architecture to satisfy the vision set bythe US government leadership. Extensive costbenefit analysis has been conducted to optimize theFLS architecture to meet SLS, MPCV, and multiplegovernment and commercial users. Kennedy SpaceCenter is proud to extend the 30-year successes of theSpace Shuttle program to the next generation ofexplorers through the FLS.

2010's21 st Century Space Launch Complex

Status Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

Ht. (tt) 12 IS 18/62 80 78/87 9S 92/131 20 171/194 205 160/180 300 184 363 321.S

FS LOX/ LOX/ LOX/ethanol(I) Solid

LOX/RP1/Solid LOX/LH2/ LOX/ LOX/LH2/Solid Solid Solid (II) LOX Solid LOX/LH2 LOX/ RP1 Solid

Comm RP1 IPA LOX! RP1/RP1

LOX/RP1 Solid RP1 Solid

FS Thrust12K 3.sK 4.SK/338K 361K 496K 383K

383K/4.2K 1.2M / 860K 6s0K/l.9M 1.1M / 304M 2.8M 6.8M 7.6M -8.8M

(Ibf) 734K

RB Processing-ARF-RPSF-HangarAF

,,­;::.:.;."...:.'~"n...;..,.:..::..w~~~~"'==---'

SLS/MPCV

CommercialPrograms

________________J

r---------------~

.----------------~

Government Core Capabilities for safety and risk mitigation