HLV Industry Day Hybrid Launch Vehicle

Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning

Mr. Bob Hickman

Aerospace CorporationSpace and Missile Systems Center

07 March 2005

ORS AoA Review

2

• Rapid reconstitution of space capabilities lost due to enemy action

• Augmentation of critical ISR capabilities

Force EnhancementForce Enhancement

• Cost Effective Lift• Responsive launch• Routine launch• Recover Space Assets• On-Orbit Servicing• Support ACTDs &

Testing

Space SupportSpace Support

• Defensive Counterspace

• Satellite Protection• Offensive

Counterspace• Space Surveillance• Small (300-lb) PLs to

high-energy orbits

CounterspaceCounterspace

• Global Precision Strike• Common Aero

Vehicle (CAV) Flexible Weapon Carrier

• Centers of Gravity• HDBT & WMD Defeat

• Response from CONUS• < 120 min

Force ApplicationForce Application

AoA defined lift capacity, responsiveness, and affordability to enable these missions

ORS AoA Mission Areas

3

Aggressiveness Assumption

FE

BA

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n%

Im

pro

vem

en

t

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

low medium high

Rep

len

ish

me

nt

Red

OC

S

Blu

e O

CS

SF

A

ORS capability has significant military utility across all three aggressiveness levels examined

ORS Effect on Military Utility

4

Many thousands of military campaign simulationsIdentified specific performance parameters to guide spacecraft design

Surveillance Requirements

Coverage: 1440 min/day scan rate of 40,000 km2/min

Performance: Probability of detection: 0.9 Probability of ID: 0.5 Probability of correct ID: 0.85

Imagery Low Res (NIIRS 1-3): 43.3 min/day Med Res (NIIRS 4-6): 130 min/day High Res (NIIRS 7+): 86.6 min/day

ISR: 10 NAV: 10SURV: 5

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

Attack

Duration

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

70%85%Med

ISR: 10NAV: 10

SURV: 10

50%50%Low

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

85%100%High

Recovery Duration

Recovery Magnitude

Attack Magnitude

Setting

ISR: 10 NAV: 10SURV: 5

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

Attack

Duration

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

70%85%Med

ISR: 10NAV: 10

SURV: 10

50%50%Low

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

85%100%High

Recovery Duration

Recovery Magnitude

Attack Magnitude

Setting

OCS / DCS

ISR: 10 NAV: 10SURV: 5

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

Attack

Duration

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

70%85%Med

ISR: 10NAV: 10

SURV: 10

50%50%Low

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

85%100%High

Recovery Duration

Recovery Magnitude

Attack Magnitude

Setting

ISR: 10 NAV: 10SURV: 5

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

ISR: 3NAV: 4

SURV: 3

Attack

Duration

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

70%85%Med

ISR: 10NAV: 10

SURV: 10

50%50%Low

ISR: 5NAV: 5

SURV: 5

85%100%High

Recovery Duration

Recovery Magnitude

Attack Magnitude

Setting

OCS / DCS

FSA (CAVs)• Level 1: 5/day for 10 days• Level 2: 50/day for 10 days• Level 3: 100/day for 20 days

FSA (CAVs)• Level 1: 5/day for 10 days• Level 2: 50/day for 10 days• Level 3: 100/day for 20 days

SFA

ORS AoA Military Utility Analysis

5

Current Way of Doing Business

ResponsiveSatellites

ResponsiveMicro-Sats

ServiceableSatellites

RecoverableSatellites

RetrievableSatellites

Store SpHLVOn-Orbit

Space Vehicle ArchitecturesSpace Vehicle Architectures

DistributedMicro-Sats

AoA Process considered how different future space architectures would AoA Process considered how different future space architectures would affect the desirability of each launch optionaffect the desirability of each launch option

71 Launch Vehicle Architectures

Launch Vehicle ArchitecturesLaunch Vehicle Architectures

Space Alternatives vs. Launch Alternatives

6

Spacelift Vehicle Options

New ELVs• 3-Stage Solid• 2-Stage Liquid

Hybrid• LH Reusable Booster• RP Reusable Booster• Liquid or Solid Upper Stages

RLV (TSTO)• Optimized LH-LH• Optimized RP-RP• Optimized RP-LH• Bimese LH-LH• Bimese RP-RP• Hypersonic Rocket

Payload Classes• 1 Klb – 45 Klb to LEO

EELV

7

Hybrid Vehicle Based Architectures Best choice in 85% of representative futures(1)

• Best or within 6% of best choice in 92% of representative futures• Best or within 15% of best choice in 96% of representative futures

Hybrid architectures minimize the worst outcome (max regret) for all levels of production costs, levels of operability, and levels of military utility

Why? Relatively low development costs Reduces launch costs by 67%(2)

2-4 Day turn-around time Low technical risk

AFFORDABILITY

RESPONSIVENESS

RISK

___1) Based on 20-Year LCC2) Compared to EELV prices, published as of Dec 2003

The Hybrid* Vehicle*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

8

~Mach 7 Separation~200,000 ft

~Mach 7 Separation~200,000 ft

$1k-$2k/lb to LEO1-2 Day Turn Time$1k-$2k/lb to LEO1-2 Day Turn Time

REUSABLEBOOSTER

EXPENDABLE UPPER STAGES

The Hybrid* Vehicle*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

9(This example based on 15 Klb to LEO capability, LH2 Propellant)

Expended Hardware (Klb)

Reused Hardware (Klb)

Hybrids offer cost-effective combination of RLV & ELV characteristicsHybrids offer cost-effective combination of RLV & ELV characteristics

RLV

196

0

Fully-Reusable RLVs• Are big because orbiter must

go to/from orbit

• Drives higher development and production costs

ELV

33

0

Fully-Expendable ELVs

• Expend large amounts of hardware

• Drives higher recurring costs

Hybrid*

12

61

Hybrid ELV-RLVs• Balance ELV-RLV Production and

Development costs, resulting in lower LCC for most cases

36% of ELV

31% of RLV

Why Hybrids* Cost Less

10

Launch Vehicle

Hybrid turnaround time ~26 Serial Hrs

* Result Supported By ORS AoA & AFRL/Industry (RAST & SOV Studies)

Infrastructure Integration Payloads Spaceport Post OpsIndustrial

Base

439 man-hrs42 34 0 7 2

7,764

12,4828,205

18,914

5,771

10,434

PropulsionPropulsion MechanicalMechanical ElectricalElectrical ThermalThermal OMS/RCSOMS/RCS P/L IntegrationP/L Integration

STS

1st Stage Hybrid RLV Subsystems1st Stage Hybrid RLV Subsystems

0

15,893

Crew SupportCrew SupportORS

• Modern Engines

• Fewer Engines• High Margins

• Benign Environment• Modern Self-

Contained Actuation

• Batteries only• No Fuel Cells• No APUs

• No TPS Required

• No OMS• Non-toxic

RCS

• Canisterized Payloads

• No Crew or long duration missions

Launch VehicleLaunchVehicle

Hybrid Vehicle Responsivenessbased on Shuttle Ops Data

11

The HLV (Mach 6+) Flight Environment

The X-15: 1959 -1968The X-15: 1959 -1968

199 FLIGHTS:199 FLIGHTS:

High Speed: Mach 6.33, with Inconel hot structureHigh Speed: Mach 6.33, with Inconel hot structure

Fast Turn: < 48 hoursFast Turn: < 48 hours

Low Cost: < ~$1.6M / flight (inflated to FY04)Low Cost: < ~$1.6M / flight (inflated to FY04)

Robust Rocket Engine (XLR-99): Throttleable, restartable, 24 MFBORobust Rocket Engine (XLR-99): Throttleable, restartable, 24 MFBO

DEMONSTRATED:DEMONSTRATED:

Demonstrated operable rocket powered flight above Mach 6

12

Reg

ion

of

Sta

te-o

f-th

e-A

rt

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90

Propellant Mass Fraction

Ve

hic

le G

ross

We

igh

t (

106

lb)

Hybrid

2-Stage RLV (TSTO)

1-Stag

e RL

V (S

ST

O)

Incentive to optimize performance

Hybrids facilitate robust designs, with low risk.Hybrids facilitate robust designs, with low risk.

Design Curve Sensitivity

13

HLV Planned Modular DevelopmentNotional Example

*PK=Peacekeeper

Shuttle depicted for size comparison only.

Peacekeeperor

Falcon SLV

ORSHybrid

ORS2-Booster

Hybrid

PK* Stg 1 & 3Upper Stages or FALCON PK or FALCON 2 New U/S

Payload to LEO 1,500 lb 14,100 lb** 24,000 lb** 45,000 lbPayload to GTO 4,500 lb 8,200 lb 15,000 lbFlyback Method none Jet Flyback Jet Flyback Jet Flyback

** Constrained to Mach 7 staging*** GTO performance requires STAR or MIS upper stages

ORS2-Booster

Hybrid (Growth)

14

AFROCC Decision (15 July 2004)

DECISION: The AFROCC has reviewed the ORS AoA, and approves it to proceed to USAF/CV as a pre-MS A (KDP A) AoA-A based on the following recommendations:

Leverage lessons learned from AF-DARPA FALCON demo Conduct Architecture Studies

o Responsive spacecraft: size and functions study o Integration and technology needs

Pursue a Hybrid launch vehicle: spiral development approach o Step one: Small scale hybrid integration demonstrator o Step two: Full scale operational hybrid demonstrator o Step three: Vehicle production /operations

Additionally, the AFROCC requires an update of the costing section of the AoA prior to MS B.

//Signed// HARRY C. DISBROW, Jr. Chairman Air Force Requirements for Operational Capabilities Council

15

Hybrids can reduce costs by factor of 3-6 and have 1-2 day turn time

Planned evolution recommended by ORS AoA, beginning with subscale demo, followed by full-scale Y-vehicle

AFROCC approved the AoA’s recommendations

Low risk compared to Mach 25 Vehicles

Modular architecture of hybrid launch vehicles can be designed to cover all weight classes

Summary Findings