Hybrid Propellant Module (HPM) Commercialization Study Final FY 01 Presentation November 6, 2001 Doug Blue (714) 896 -3728 Dave Carey (714) 896 -3186 Rudy Saucillo (757) 864 -7224
Table of Contents • Introduction • Projected Satellites/Constellations • HPM Performance Analyses — Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) Support — Geostationary Orbit (GEO) Support • Integrated HPM Traffic Model • HPM Economic Viability Analysis • Operations and Technology Assessment • Summary 2
Introduction 3
HPM Commercialization Study Overview Objective • Assess the HPM’s potential applicability and benefits for Earth’s Neighborhood commercial and military space missions in the +2015 timeframe • Determine common technology development areas important to commercial/military/HPM systems Goals • Determine key areas of need for projected commercial/military missions that HPM may support (e. g. , deployment, refueling/servicing, retrieval/disposal) • Quantify the levels of potential HPM commercial utilization and develop ROM estimates for the resulting economic impacts • Determine common technology development areas to leverage NASA research spinoffs/technology transfers and identify potential cost savings initiatives Study Drivers • Projected commercial/military satellite market • HPM design (sizing, performance) • HPM allocation to support identified markets (HPM traffic models) • ETO transportation costs (trades vs. non-HPM architectures, cost of HPM resupply propellant) 4
Key Assumptions • • Sun Commercial Orbits Synch Polar Molniya Commercial scenarios utilize HPM modules GEO as defined for Exploration missions using “performance” masses LEO-MEO A low cost Earth-to-LEO transportation capability is required GTO – Low cost, high reliability RLV or ELV for satellite launch (sensitive, expensive cargo), and possibly a – Low cost, potentially lower reliability ELV for launch of HPM resupply propellant (insensitive cargo) – Cost per kg goals are assessed as part of the HPM Economic Viability Analysis • Industry adopts common infrastructure - attach fittings, refueling ports, plug-and-play avionics, other required I/Fs • Goal is to maximize potential HPM commercial opportunities (i. e. , greatest number of satellites deployed/serviced with minimum number of required HPMs) 5
HPM Commercialization Study Methodology Inputs • HPM Specs • Commercial Satellite Traffic Models • Military Analogs • Ground Rules & Assumptions • Technology Initiative Databases Analysis of Projected Satellites/Constellations Refinement of Commercial Traffic Models • Potential HPM support roles • HPM operations strategies • “Best fit” HPM orbit planes Commercial HPM Traffic Model Development HPM Performance Analysis • “Speed curves” for LEO, MEO and GEO missions • Single and multiple HPM operations • HPM Block I and II Technology and Operations Assessment • HPM resizing options • Enabling/enhancing technologies for commercial operations • Satellite design and operations impacts HPM Economic Viability Analysis • High and Low Traffic Models • HPM/CTM life cycle revenue • Integrated Commercial, Military & potential Exploration • ETO cost targets (satellite • #HPMs and HPM flight rate per delivery and HPM resupply mission type propellant) • ETO estimate for HPM resupply • HPM/CTM non-recurring propellant start-up cost FY 01 Study Products • Integrated Commercial, Military Outputs & Exploration Traffic Models • Preliminary HPM Economic Viability Analysis • HPM Enabling Technologies • Satellite Design/Ops Impacts 6 FY 02 Study Inputs “Clean Sheet” ELV Concept Development • Supports HPM resupply propellant delivery to LEO • Design goal to minimize cost to orbit • Objectives include definition of ELV configuration concepts; identification of operations concepts, systems and enabling technologies
References for Commercial Satellite Traffic Models and Military Analogs Futron Corporation. “Trends in Space Commerce” March 2001. • Provides trends for major space industry segments through 2020 • Based on survey polls of 700 global aerospace companies Federal Aviation Administration. “ 2001 Commercial Space Transportation Projections for Non-geosynchronous Orbits (NGSO)” May 2001. [referred to as the Comstac Study] • Projects launch demand for commercial space systems through 2010 • Based on survey of 90 industry organizations Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). “The Military Use of Space; A Diagnostic Assessment” February 2001. • Assessment of the evolving capabilities of nations and other “actors” to exploit near. Earth space for military purposes over the next 20 -25 years. • Based on interviews with key military personnel and web site research Review of numerous Web sites • Provided satellite constellation detail 7
Additional References “AIAA International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems” 1999. • Information on current launch costs “Research and Development in CONUS Labs (Ra. Di. CL) Data Base” 1999. • Military laboratory technology initiatives “NASA Technology Inventory Data Base” 2001. • NASA funded technology activities Technology Planning Briefing, Boeing Space and Communications, June 2001. • Summary of Boeing’s IRAD programs to enable technologies Interviews with Boeing personnel • Orbital Express Program (DARPA) – to identify additional military analogs • 3 rd Generation RLV Enterprise – use of HPM or similar element in overall transportation architecture 8
Projected Satellites/Constellations 9
Commercial Satellite Market Trends Futron Study 10
Commercial Satellite Market Trends Comstac Study Comstac Forecast Trends in Payload Mass Distribution 11
Satellite Market Forecast Commercial • NGSO market estimates fluctuating, trends volatile • GEO launch demand fairly constant ( >30/year) • Spacecraft mass growth continues - especially heavies ( >5, 445 kg) • Spacecraft trend toward electric propulsion • Commercial launch demand trends: – Consolidation of spacecraft manufacturers/owners – Increasing on-orbit lifetime – Business conservatism for financing projects Military • Military applications difficult to identify; programs under definition • Trend toward greater value and functionality per satellite unit mass; initial “picosatellite” experiments have been completed • AF Science Advisory Board: distributed constellations of smaller satellites offer better prospects for “global, real-time coverage” and “advantages in scaling, performance, cost, and survivability” • Potential for very large antenna arrays for optical and radio-frequency imaging utilizing advanced structures and materials technologies 12
Current NGSO Commercial Constellation Summary LEO = Low Earth Orbit MEO = Medium Earth Orbit ELI = Elliptical Earth Orbit Ha = Height of Apogee Hp = Height of Perigee Inc = Inclination 13
Current NGSO Military Constellation Summary Commercial/Military parameter summary • Total constellation count = 39 • Altitude range => 556 to 2, 800 km – Except for GPS (20, 200 km), New ICO (10, 390 km), Rostelesat (10, 360 km), 3 elliptical constellations • Inclination range => 45 to 117 degrees – Except for ECCO, ECO-8, and Ellipso (part) all at 0 degrees • Orbit planes => 1 to 8 • Data available for 27 constellations for HPM traffic model analysis 14
Current Distribution of GEO Satellites • Satellite count = 279 • Co-located satellites offset by 2 degree latitude increments for display • Source data: www. lyngsat. com 15
HPM Commercial Satellite Deploy Scenario Satellite Operational Orbit (or Geostationary Transfer Orbit) 400 KM HPM Parking Orbit (1) ELV launches HPM resupply (3) HPM/CTM perform rendezvous/docking and maneuver to satellite operational orbit propellant; HPM/CTM perform rendezvous/dock and refueling operations (4) HPM/CTM deploy satellite in operational orbit and return to parking orbit (2) RLV launches and deploys one or more satellites to LEO (5) HPM/CTM complete maneuver to parking orbit 16
HPM Commercial Satellite Servicing/Refueling Scenario Satellite Operational Orbit (3) HPM/CTM perform 400 KM HPM Parking Orbit LEO rendezvous/docking and maneuver to satellite operational orbit (4) HPM/CTM refuel (1) ELV launches HPM resupply propellant; HPM/CTM perform rendezvous/dock and refueling operations (2) RLV or ELV launches and deploys to LEO satellite propellant and/or refurbish components and/or refurbish satellite and return to parking orbit (5) HPM/CTM complete maneuver to parking orbit 17
HPM Military Applications • HPM could provide next generation, follow-on capabilities (transportation) initially provided by the DARPA Orbital Express Space Operations Architecture Program • Orbital Express will develop and demonstrate robotic techniques for satellite: – – Preplanned electronics upgrade Refueling Repositioning Reconfiguration • OE potentially may support a broad range of future US national security and commercial space programs – Mission enabling – Cost reduction through spacecraft life extension • OE incorporates “industry standard” non -proprietary satellite-to-satellite electrical and mechanical interfaces • Demonstration of Orbital Express spacecraft planned for launch in CY 2004 18
HPM Performance Analyses 19
HPM Block II Payload/Velocity “Speed” Curves (Utilizing a Single HPM Per Mission) • Preliminary HPM performance analyses based on manipulation of the rocket equation where DV = velocity change, g = gravity constant, Isp = specific impulse, mi = initial mass, mf = final mass • • Curve shows initial comparison of selected mission velocity requirements with various HPM system capabilities Subsequent NGSO analysis based on performance of single HPM/CTM deployment mission 20
HPM Block II Performance Capability vs. Representative Spacecraft 21
HPM Block II Initial Performance Assessment GEO deploy/servicing missions • • • GEO direct deployment/servicing using chemical propulsion is not feasible – HPM Block II “no payload” capability is about 3/4 of the round trip DV requirement of 4, 195 mps GTO deployment missions (DV = 2, 407 mps) using chemical propulsion appear feasible for satellites up to 19, 000 kg GEO direct deployment/servicing from equatorial launch site and using electric propulsion is possible although potentially not operationally viable – Equatorial launch site is required since orbit plane changes are very difficult using SEP – SEP usage increases trip time significantly; results in reduced mission rate – Frequent SEP engine and PV cell refurbishment is costly NGSO servicing missions • • • Considerable payload margin exists for LEO satellite direct deployment/servicing MEO/HEO direct deployment/servicing using chemical propulsion is not feasible (e. g. , GPS DV = 3, 400 mps) MEO/HEO deployment is feasible with chemical propulsion via transfer orbit only 22
Satellite Orbit Transfer Definitions Orbital Volume Definitions HPM to Satellite Maneuver Sequence Altitude 1. Raise HPM altitude Holmann transfer with DV’s at perigee and apogee of transfer orbit Inclination 2. Change inclination* DV perpendicular to orbit plane at ascending or descending node Equatorial plane Right Ascension of Ascending Node 3. Change right ascension DV perpendicular to orbit plane 90 o from ascending or descending node * Sequence steps 2 and 3 reversed if satellite inclination > HPM inclination 23
Analysis Assumptions Market • Future NGSO constellations will exist in similar orbits as recently envisioned Launch Vehicle • Delivers payloads to 400 km circular parking orbits at inclination (inc) and right ascension (RA) of stored HPM closest to final orbit HPM • HPM chemical engine applies DV impulsively at locally optimal orbit locations – Perigee and Apogee (i. e. , Hohmann transfers) for altitude variation – Node crossings for inclination changes – Nodal complement locations for right ascension changes • A propellant reserve provides 150 mps velocity reserve for maneuvers (e. g. , rendezvous, proximity operations and docking, reboost in storage orbits, etc) SEP • Not considered in analyses due to mission duration impact and refurbishment costs CTM • Propellant is available to autonomously pre-position to HPM rendezvous point as necessary Satellite • Satellite battery life available for ~2 days autonomous operation between LEO delivery and HPM docking and mission completion - Boeing Satellite Systems concurs 24
HPM Performance Analyses – Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) Support 25
NGSO Constellation Orbital Distribution 26
HPM Capability Analysis HPM to NGSO DV Requirements Worksheet HPM Payload Capability Worksheet 27
NGSO Analysis “Worst Case” Results Approach • • • HPM propulsively changes RA HPM inclination and number of planes adjusted to increase deploy/servicing candidates Record cases with payloads greater than constellation’s satellite mass Trends • Increasing number of planes: – Improves Block I performance – Marginally improves number of candidate constellations – But, adds one HPM/CTM per plane • Adjusting inclination : – Away from ISS captures one military asset – Has minor impact for near polar constellations Results • 28 14 of 27 constellations deployable/serviceable with 3 constellations of 10 HPM/CTMs in each
NGSO Analysis “Best Case” Results Approach • • Near ISS Permit differential RA to align HPM and target orbit planes Assume 1 o RA change for maneuver margin Results (Block II) • 24 of 27 constellations may be serviceable with three Block II HPM constellations and possibly only two Block II constellations (inc= 54, 98 deg) HPM plane count a function of allowable phase time • Polar Sun Synchronous 29
Additional Block I NGSO Analysis Modifications/additions needed to HPM Block I constellations to provide the same coverage as higher performing Block II HPM constellations: “Worst Case” full propulsive results • Adjust inclination of Near ISS HPMs for Block I • Inclination = 51 o for full propulsive maneuver to ORBCOMM “Best Case” results following differential RA alignment • Additional “Mid Inclination” HPM Block I constellation needed • Inclination = 59 o for propulsive maneuvers following phasing alignment from differential RA 30
NGSO Analysis Differential RA Summary Commercial Constellations Indicates most applicable HPM deploy/servicing constellation 31
NGSO Analysis Differential RA Summary Military Constellations Indicates most applicable HPM deploy/servicing constellation 32
NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane Count (Block II) 33
NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane Count (Block II) 34
NGSO Average Mission Phase Time (Block II) 35
NGSO Traffic Model Conclusions (Block II) HPM Constellation Allocation • • Most of the current suite of commercial/military constellations are deployable/serviceable using HPM/CTM Block II – Requires one constellation of 8 HPM/CTMs near ISS inclination – Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near polar inclination – Planar launch window opportunities within 30 days Near ISS constellations better accessed from 54 deg vs 51. 6 deg inclination parking orbit Near Polar constellations equally accessible from inclinations between 90 and 98 deg parking orbits Equatorial constellations may be accessed by equatorially based HPM/CTMs for GEO missions HPM Block II Nominal Traffic Model for 18 total HPM/CTMs • For GPS deploy/servicing, single HPM/CTM can deliver GPS to transfer orbit only (400 x 20, 200 km @ i=55 o); Full GPS analysis included as part of GEO Support section 36
NGSO Traffic Model Conclusions (Block I) HPM Constellation Allocation • • Most of the current suite of commercial/military constellations are deployable/serviceable using HPM/CTM Block I – Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near ISS inclination (inc = 51 deg) – Requires one constellation of 4 HPM/CTMs for mid inclinations (inc = 59 deg) – Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near polar inclination (inc = 90. 3 deg) – Planar launch window opportunities within 30 days Equatorial constellations may be deployed/serviced by equatorially based HPM/CTMs for GEO missions HPM Block II Nominal Traffic Model for 24 total HPM/CTMs • For GPS deploy/servicing - single HPM/CTM can deliver GPS to transfer orbit only (400 x 20, 200 km @ i=55 o); Full GPS analysis included as part of GEO Support section 37
HPM Performance Analyses – Geostationary Orbit (GEO) Support 38
GEO/GPS Performance Analysis Block I and II Definitions • • Single HPM/CTM Paired: Two fully loaded HPM/CTM, outbound separately, one with payload / one without, returning together using total remaining propellant Tandem: Multiple HPMs (up to 4) with one CTM docked end to end with propellant flow-through from one HPM to the next one in stack Paired/Tandem: Two sets of two tandem HPMs, each with a single CTM operating as defined above for Paired Assumptions • • Same as defined for NGSO analysis, plus Tandem HPM dry weights increased by 10% to account for flowthrough propellant feed system 39
GEO/GPS Performance Summary Block I PAYLOAD (kg) Mission/ DV* HPM configuration Single Paired Tandem 2 HPMs 3 HPMs 4 HPMs Paired/Tandem 2 HPMs per pair GTO 2, 400 mps GEO-28 deg 4, 200 mps GEO-0 deg 3, 856 mps GPS 51. 6 3, 429 mps GPS transfer 2, 159 mps 8, 605 17, 211 -26, 491 -52, 982 -21, 251 -12, 651 -14, 158 -28, 316 16, 186 32, 373 32, 609 58, 331 84, 053 -32, 913 -37, 096 -41, 278 -23, 474 -23, 573 -23, 672 -10, 474 -4, 799 875 47, 274 80, 024 112, 775 65, 218 -65, 827 -49, 949 -20, 949 94, 547 Block II PAYLOAD (kg) Mission/ DV* HPM configuration Single Paired Tandem 2 HPMs 3 HPMs 4 HPMs Paired/Tandem 2 HPMs per pair * One way GTO 2, 400 mps GEO-28 deg 4, 200 mps GEO-0 deg 3, 856 mps GPS 51. 6 3, 429 mps GPS transfer 2, 159 mps 19, 376 38, 753 -12, 453 -24, 906 -7, 941 -15, 882 -1, 678 -3, 355 26, 610 53, 219 50, 751 83, 231 115, 710 -9, 267 -4, 643 -18 -1, 054 7, 197 15, 449 10, 547 24, 052 37, 556 64, 831 104, 120 143, 410 101, 503 -18, 534 -2, 108 21, 094 129, 661 Preferred Configuration 40
GEO/GPS Operational Conclusions Performance • • • Single Block I or Block II vehicles are only capable of performing GTO and GPS transfer missions None of the configurations studied can deliver payloads to GEO from 28 deg Only Block II tandem configurations have useful payload capability for either GEO (equatorial launch) or GPS (51. 6 deg launch) missions The use of 3 or more HPMs in tandem (required for equatorial GEO) should be considered operationally problematical at best Tandem configurations out perform Paired configurations, for equal numbers of HPMs The currently envisioned HPM configurations are undersized propellant-wise for GEO missions and also suffer from the extra dry weight associated with SEP accommodations Traffic Model • • Two Block I or II HPM/CTMs delivering up to 15 payloads/year to GTO cover the forecasted 30 GEO payloads per year GPS transfer orbit traffic is included in the NGSO traffic model 41
Integrated HPM Traffic Model 42
HPM/CTM Integrated Traffic Model (Block II) NGSO Near ISS Constellation Support - 8 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 11 days <= one per 12. 2 weeks for each HPM/CTM (4 per year/HPM) • Planar launch windows every 4. 5 days (average) for nodal alignment (Does not impact mission rate) • Launches from Eastern Test Range NGSO Near Polar Constellation Support - 10 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 11 days <= one per 16. 3 weeks for each HPM/CTM (3 per year/HPM) • Planar launch windows every 8. 4 days (average) for nodal alignment (Does not impact mission rate) • Launches from Vandenburg Air Force Base GEO Constellation Support - 2 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 12 days <= 15 per year for each HPM/CTM • Launch on demand from Eastern Test Range NASA Exploration (Lunar Gateway) Support – 7 HPMs • 7 HPMs, 6 SEP Stages, 1 -2 CTMs and CTVs • 1 lunar excursion every 6 months • Launch from Eastern Test Range Total – 27 HPMs, 21 -22 CTMs, 1 -2 CTVs Note: Traffic Model based on average satellite lifetime of 7. 5 years. 43
OASIS Integrated Traffic Model (Block II) Traffic model variation is based on satellite lifetime extremes Lifetime Estimates 5 years 10 years “Refined” commercial traffic model based on: • Higher usage rate missions only (> 3 flights per HPM per year) • Single launch site from ETR to eliminate duplication of ground infrastructure (excludes polar servicing) • 50% market share (of high traffic model) 44
Total Block II HPM/CTM Annual Propellant Requirement 45
HPM Economic Viability Analysis 46
OASIS Economic Viability Analysis Overview Objective • Provide a preliminary economic viability assessment of HPM/CTM in future commercial satellite deployment/servicing markets as defined by the integrated traffic model Approach • • Compare potential life cycle earnings over range of critical economic factors – Identify economic factors with strong influence on earnings – Determine the economic sensitivity and establish hurdle values for these critical factors Earning levels necessary for economic viability include allowance for nonrecurring start up costs – Start up costs per HPM/CTM include: HPM/CTM procurement (ROM estimate: ~$150 million each), and initial launch, development and deployment of commercial peculiar infrastructure (e. g. , HPM propellant processing facilities) – Start up costs per HPM/CTM assumed not to exceed $500 million; actual value varies inversely with fleet size – Industry leverages government investment in infrastructure development 47
Identification of Critical Economic Factors Definition Critical Economic Factors • Charge to deploy satellite to operational orbit Total charge to customer to deploy their satellite Ch • Propellant delivery cost to LEO ($ per kg) - Establishes cost to resupply HPM with full load (~32, 000 kg) of propellant per deployment Prop • Payload (satellite) cost ($ per kg) to LEO - 5, 000 kg payload, calculated at twice the $/kg as propellant • HPM/CTM use rate - HPM/CTM flights per year (based on traffic model analysis) • Life cycle earnings - LCE = [Ch - (Prop + P/L)]*R*10 year HPM/CTM life 48 P/L R
Economic Sensitivity to Satellite Deployment Cost • Range of deployment charges was selected to represent a substantial reduction over current launch costs for similar sized satellites • Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for nonrecurring start-up costs • Propellant delivery costs must be less than $600 to $1, 600 per kg over range of charges for satellite deployment 49
Rational for Selection of Parametric Satellite Deployment Costs • $70 million upper value of the range offers $15 to $30 million dollar cost advantage over an existing launch vehicle capable of deploying 5, 000 kg to GTO (i. e. , Delta IV medium +4, 2) • $50 million nominal value is competitive, cost wise, with a Delta III class vehicle, but offers substantially greater payload capability to GTO, or multi payloads to lower energy orbits • $30 million minimum deployment cost represents a highly competitive option which can deploy Delta IV medium +4, 2 class payloads for less than the cost of a Delta II 50
Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate • Range of use rates was established by the HPM integrated traffic model (flight rates of less than 6/yr produce poor economics at this deployment charge) • Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for non- recurring start-up costs • Propellant delivery costs must be less than $300 to $600 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates for this minimal satellite deployment charge 51
Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate • Range of use rates established by the HPM integrated traffic model (flight rates of less than 3/yr produce poor economics at this deployment charge) • Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for nonrecurring start-up costs • Propellant delivery costs must be less than $700 to $1, 100 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates for this nominal satellite deployment charge 52
Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate • Range of use rates established by the HPM integrated traffic model (flight rates of less than 3/yr produce minimal economics at this deployment charge) • Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for nonrecurring start-up costs • Propellant delivery costs must be less than $1, 300 to $1, 600 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates for this maximum considered satellite deployment charge 53
HPM Economic Viability Analysis Conclusions • Government (NASA or DOD) provides OASIS element DDT&E funding. Industry will leverage government investment in infrastructure development. • Enough lifecycle revenue to: o Cover start-up costs including HPM/CTM procurement/launch, and development and deployment of commercial peculiar infrastructure (e. g. , HPM propellant processing facilities). These start-up costs are estimated to be as much as $0. 5 billion per HPM/CTM. o Provide the desired commercial return on investment. • Low propellant delivery cost, less than $1, 000/kg for the nominal $50 million OASIS satellite deployment charge. • HPM use rates greater than 3 flights per year. 54
Operations and Technology Assessment 55
HPM Sized for Direct GEO Servicing 400 km 28 Degree Initial Orbit Requirements • Deliver 5, 000 kg to GEO orbit ( one way DV = 4, 200 m/sec ) • Return HPM/CTM to 400 km 28 degree orbit Assumptions • Block II technology • HPM dry weight increased to account for additional propellant • Additional dry mass based on 0. 94 propellant tank mass fraction { D propellant / (D propellant + D dry mass) = 0. 94 } Results • Usable propellant increased to 70, 513 kg from 30, 826 kg (39, 687 kg additional propellant) • HPM dry mass increased by 2, 533 kg to 6, 637 from 4, 104 kg 56
“Clean Sheet” ELV Propellant Delivery Design Implications Requirements Payload Delivery (LOX and LH 2) Launch Vehicle • • 32 K kgs total per HPM mission – 27 K kgs LOX – 5 K kgs LH 2 1. 4 M kgs per year for fleet (based on “refined” traffic model – 1. 2 M kgs LOX – 0. 2 M kgs LH 2 – Launch rate - 1 HPM mission per 8 days Large payload two stage ELV, no solids Encapsulated payload Manufacturing and Launch Operations • Vehicle, engine mfg, LO 2, LH 2 production at launch site(s) • • • Horizontal integration, erect on pad Small mission analysis & launch support team Two sites (ETR, WTR) or new site (0 to 90 o azimuth) Mission orbits Typical Technology Initiatives • • • LEO - 400 km circular ~ Half of missions @ 28 and 55 o inclination ~ Half of missions @ 90 and 98 o inclination Nanotube structures Liquid Injection TVC Photonic Avionics Reliability - overall system reliability = 0. 9 Alternatives Cost - $1000/kg of payload to orbit • • On Orbit Ops support for HPM/CTM control of: • • Auto rendezvous/dock Propellant transfer to HPM Operational Date - 2016 57 Rail gun (i. e. , maglev) Air launch with reusable upper stage RLV Focused market - omit polar missions
Technology Assessment Review of 1999 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) database • Developed by Advanced Systems and Technology Directorate • All studies performed at Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) • Technology studies related to HPM commercial usage – On-board autonomy • Autonomous Remote Servicing - Automate mechanical functions, such as supply, maintenance and inspection, on on-orbit spacecraft. These functions extend the life of spacecraft without requiring the tremendous expense of manned repair missions, restriction to STS reachable orbits, or extensive redundant components. – Mission data processing and exploitation • Space simulation framework - Reduce development and ops risk and cost of designing, building, testing, launching and operating satellites – Command Control • Multi-mission Advanced Ground Intelligent Control - Support operational concepts of reducing skill levels and number of operators, reducing training time, enabling operators skilled in multiple satellite operations, and providing these capabilities at a greatly decreased acquisition, operations, and maintenance cost • Advanced Astrodynamics Development and Analysis - Develop quantitative methods to assess risk of collision, development of techniques to optimize spacecraft maneuvers, and develop methods for autonomous constellation 58 operations.
Summary 59
Principal Results and Conclusions HPM Commercial Traffic Models • HPM commercial traffic models have been developed based on satellite delivery; considered the “floor” for potential HPM commercial applications • Future Do. D missions may provide additional HPM applications/usage rates HPM Economic Viability • HPM/CTM has commercial potential when used as an orbital transfer stage in conjunction with a low cost booster to LEO • HPM commercial viability is highly sensitive to infrastructure costs, mission rates and Earth-to-LEO launch costs – Single site for HPM propellant launch is highly desirable to minimize ground infrastructure costs – Required HPM propellant launch costs are consistent with NASA DPT requirements for insensitive cargo – Required costs for satellite launch to LEO are consistent with SLI 2 nd Generation RLV goals for sensitive cargo 60
FY 02 Activities Follow-on activities under RASC have been proposed for FY 02: • Refinement of potential HPM commercial and military applications • Life cycle cost assessment of HPM for commercial and exploration applications • “Clean sheet” analysis of a very low-cost commercial expendable launch vehicle (ELV) designed to support HPM on-orbit propellant re-supply • Continued identification of HPM commercial applications-specific technology requirements and technology candidates 61
Acronym List CSBA CTM DARPA ELI ELV ETO GEO GPS GTO Ha Hp HPM Inc ISS LEO LH 2 LOX MEO NGSO OE RA RLV ROM SEP TVC Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Chemical Transfer Module Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Elliptical Orbit Expendable Launch Vehicle Earth to Orbit Geostationary Earth Orbit Global Positioning System Geostationary Transfer Orbit Height of Apogee Height of Perigee Hybrid Propellant Module Inclination of Orbit International Space Station Low Earth Orbit Liquid Hydrogen Liquid Oxygen Medium Earth Orbit Non-Geostationary Orbital Express Right Ascension of Ascending Node Reusable Launch Vehicle Rough Order of Magnitude Solar Electric Propulsion Trust Vector Control 62
References 1. World Space Systems Briefing, the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va. , presented during the IAF 52 nd International Astronautical Congress in Toulouse, France, dated October 2, 2001. 2. Trends in Space Commerce, Futron Corporation, dated March, 2001. 3. 2001 Commercial Space Transportation Projections for Nongeosynchronous Orbits (NGSO), Federal Aviation Administration, dated May, 2001. 4. The Military Use of Space; A Diagnostic Assessment, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, dated February, 2001. 5. AIAA International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, dated 1999. 6. Research and Development in CONUS Labs (Ra. Di. CL) Data Base, National Reconnaissance Office, dated 1999. 7. NASA Technology Inventory Database, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, maintained on-line. 8. Technology Planning Briefing, Boeing Space and Communications Group, dated June, 2001. 9. Roy A. E. , The Foundations of Astrodynamics, Mac. Millan Company, dated 1965. 63
Backup 64
HPM Block I Payload/Velocity “Speed” Curves (Utilizing a Single HPM Per Mission) • Preliminary HPM performance analyses based on manipulation of the rocket equation where DV = velocity change, g = gravity constant, Isp = specific impulse, mi = initial mass, mf = final mass • • Curve shows initial comparison of selected mission velocity requirements with various HPM system capabilities Subsequent NGSO analysis based on performance of single HPM/CTM deployment mission HPM System Capability HPM/CTM Block I Performance Deploy P/L (all electric) Retrieve P/L (all electric) Deploy P/L (all chemical) Retrieve P/L (all chemical) 100, 000 Required Impulsive DV's from 400 km circular parking orbit (27 deg inc) Payload (kgs) 80, 000 P/L chem out + HPM elec in (hybrid stage) 60, 000 40, 000 GTO GPS 20, 000 0 1, 000 1, 500 2, 000 Ref: La. RC speed curves * Round trip D V = 2*payload delivery 2, 500 3, 000 GEO No Plane Change 3, 500 Payload Delivery Delta Velocity* (mps) 65 4, 000 GEO Required electric DV from equatorial 400 km circular to GEO 4, 500 5, 000
HPM Block I Performance Capability vs. Representative Spacecraft KH-12 KH-11 Trumpet New ICO Iridium 66
Additional NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane Count (Block I) Block II data for the polar HPM constellation at 90. 3 o also applies for Block I concept 67
NGSO Average Mission Phase Time (Block I) Block II data for the polar HPM constellation at 90. 3 o also applies for Block I concept 68
HPM/CTM Integrated Traffic Model (Block I) NGSO Near ISS Constellation Support - 10 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 17 days <= one per 24. 4 weeks for each HPM/CTM (2 per year/HPM) • Planar launch windows every 4. 3 days for nodal alignment (Does not impact mission rate) • Launches from Eastern Test Range NGSO Mid Inclination Constellation Support - 4 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 46 days <= one per 26. 0 weeks for each HPM/CTM (2 per year/HPM) • Planar launch windows every 11 days for nodal alignment (Does not impact mission rate) • Launches from Vandenburg Air Force Base (or Eastern Test Range with small dogleg maneuver) NGSO Near Polar Constellation Support - 10 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 11 days <= one per 16. 3 weeks for each HPM/CTM (3 per year/HPM) • Average phase time of 8. 4 days for nodal alignment (Does not impact mission rate) • Launches from Vandenburg Air Force Base GEO Constellation Support - 2 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 12 days <= 15 per year for each HPM/CTM • Launch on demand from Eastern Test Range Exploration Support - 4 HPM/CTMs • Average mission rate of 1 every 91 days • Launch on demand from Eastern Test Range Total Mission Rate - 30 HPM/CTMs • Combined support requirement is 21 + 8 + 32 + 30 + 4 = 96 missions per year • One mission every 3. 8 days Note: Traffic Model based on average satellite lifetime of 7. 5 years. 69
Total Block I HPM/CTM Annual Propellant Requirement 70
Скачать презентацию Hybrid Propellant Module HPM Commercialization Study Final FY
c4a6fdb71e43e08df8d9c35db6b1e603.ppt