RS2Wrap-Up

Los Angeles, CA April 19–22, 2004

Email: ResponsiveSpace@smad.com web: www.ResponsiveSpace.com

Conclusions from the Second Responsive Space Conference

Sponsored by

AIAA LA and Orange County Sections and Space Systems Technical Committee

James R. Wertz, General Chairman

03-1167

2

Topics

• The Responsive Space Conference

• The Push for Responsive Space

• The AF/DARPA FALCON program

• Facing the Challenge

3

The 2nd Responsive Space Conference

• Held in Los Angeles, CA, April 19-22, 2004– 300 attendees, 2 senior panels, AF/DARPA FLACON program summary, and 39

professional papers – Keynote speaker:

Prof. Sir Martin Sweeting, CEO Surrey Space Technology Limited– Executive Panel:

Joe Sciabica, Associate Director, AFRL (Moderator)BGen. Richard Geraci, National Security Space ArchitectRobert Sackheim, MSFC Deputy Director and Chief Engineer for PropulsionCAPT. David G. Markham, USN, Chief of Staff, NRO AS&TTom Wilson, President, Swales Aerospace

– Needs and Requirements Panel:Dr. Alok Das, AFRL/VS (Moderator)Jamie Esper, NASA GSFCDr. Todd Mosher, Utah State UniversityLt. Col. Tim Thompson, AFSPC

– Speakers:LtGen Brian Arnold, Director, Space and Missile CenterMGen Michael Hamel, 14th Air ForceMGen (ret) Robert Dickman, former DoD Space Architect, Deputy to Peter Teets

Like the first Responsive Space Conference in 2003, the message of the conference was unambiguous: To meet the challenges of the

future, space must become dramatically more responsive.

4

Conference Corporate Sponsors

5

What Does Responsive Space Mean?

• Responsive Launch– Launch systems within a day of identified need– Initial emphasis on small payloads, may apply to larger payloads later

• Responsive Space Systems– Return data from payloads within the first 1-2 orbits after launch– Elements that need to be addressed:

• Spacecraft bus• Payloads and sensors• Operations• Data dissemination

• Responsive Missions– Something less than a decade from an identified need or new capability to assets

ready to fly• What we want is payloads ready to go — mission capability on demand

– This element is largely a challenge to the government

In any current or potential conflict, space assets can be brought to bear only if they are already operational.We can not currently reconstitute assets which fail or launch new assets in response to world events.

This is the problem which must be solved.

6

What Are the Likely Needs forNext Generation Sensor Technology?

• Start-up and initialization– Be able to be turned on as soon as the vehicle enters space

• Being powered up from lift-off could support responsiveness

• Outgassing and warm-up– Should not take more than a few minutes

• Calibration– Rapid calibration would be a requirement for responsive systems– Options might include

• No calibration or ground calibration• Rapid calibration when sensor first arrives in space (i.e., as soon as the shroud is

jettisoned)• Auto-calibration as needed• Moderate quality initial results with improved quality after calibration

• Data must be rapidly returned to the user – On-board data processing– Direct down-link– Store and forward

To meet the need for responsiveness, Next GenerationSensor Technology must be ready to begin returning data

within the first or second orbits after launch.

7

Why Was the Conference Held?

• Responsiveness has become critical to many modern systems– War in Iraq

– Shorter time frame for most information-based technologies

• “Instant answers” to many issues available on the Internet or web

• Space assets are a major contributor in many areas– Military, commercial, science, engineering, education, exploration

• But, however important space assets may be in today’s world, they aren’t responsive

– Apollo went from a dream to landing people on the Moon (including developing the largest rocket ever built) in 8 years

– Today, major unmanned programs take well more than a decade, and even small satellite missions can take 5 to 7 years

• Many would regard Iridium as a technical success, but a business failure– Why? — Largely because it took too long to build and deploy and was made irrelevant by the

rapid growth of ground-based systems

– The lack of multiple LEO communications constellations is, in part, a direct result of the lack of responsiveness in our industry

The fundamental questions for the conference were:How do we make space responsive?

If we’re successful, how do we take advantage of this new capability?

8

Have We Made Progress in the Last Year?

• AF/DARPA FALCON program is underway– Phase I is in progress

• 9 Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS) contractors– Air Launch– Andrews Space– KT Engineering– Lockheed Martin– Microcosm– Orbital Sciences– Quadrum– Shafer– SpaceX

• 4 Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) contractors– Andrews Space– Boeing– Lockheed Martin– Northrop Grumman Space Technology

– Phase II expected to begin August, 2004

• Work is also underway on Responsive Missions and Systems, but don’t yet have a coordinated plan in place

Answer: Yes, we’ve made progress, but not as much, nor as rapidly, as we might like.

9

The Challenge for Responsive Space

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this

decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth.”

– John Kennedy, before a joint session of Congress, May 25, 1961

“The U.S. Air Force has kick-started a major study on quick-to-launch boosters

capable of enhancing the nation’s warfighting abilities,... Given a Pentagon go-

ahead and funding, the Air Force could first fly a multi-stage system by 2014.”

– Leonard David, in Space News, March 28, 2003

“If it takes us 11 years to create a Responsive Space capability, we all oughta find a

different line of work.”

– Jim Wertz, Challenge to the First Responsive Space Conference, April 1, 2003

We can do better. We must do better. How are we going to do it?

10

Responsive Space III

• Should we hold RS3?

• If so, When?

– 1 year, 2 years?

– April 18 - 21, 2005?

• What are the critical topics?