HLV Industry Day Hybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning Mr. Bob Hickman Aerospace Corporation Space and Missile Systems Center 07 March 2005 ORS AoA Review
Jan 31, 2016
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