Space Launch Initiative 2 nd Generation RLV Program Alternate Access to Station May 2002 Update.

Space Launch Initiative2nd Generation RLV Program

Alternate Access to Station

May 2002 Update

2May 2002 UpdateMay 2002 Update

Space Transportation Across NASA

Ames Research Center– Integrated Vehicle

Health Management– Computational Tools

Stennis Space Center– Rocket Propulsion

Testing

Kennedy Space Center– Payload and

Launch Operations– Range Operations

Dryden FlightResearch Center

– AtmosphericFlight Operations

Johnson Space Center– Crew and Passenger

Systems– NASA Unique

Marshall Space Flight Center – System Integration– Propulsion Systems– Program Integration

– Vehicle Definition– Systems Engineering– Flight Mechanics

Air Force– Requirements– Research Lab

Glenn ResearchCenter

– Subsystems• Avionics• Power

JPL– Autonomous

Operations– Microelectronics/

Sensors

Langley Research Center– Airframe Design– Integrated Thermal

Structures– Materials

Goddard SpaceFlight Center

– Payload andLaunch Operations

– Range Operations


2nd Generation RLV Program Schedule

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

Space Transportation Architecture

Studies/Integrated Space Transportation Plan

Phase 1Architecture Definition and

Risk Reduction

Phase 2Architecture Design

Risk Reduction/Advanced Development

2GRLV Decision Gates

Selection of Multiple Architectures and Risk Reduction Tasks

Approval by Source Selection Official and Center Directors

Initial Architecture &Technology Review

Full-Scale Development Decision

Selection of ~Two Architectures and Advanced Development Tasks

Architecture/Systems Rqmts. Review Technology Integration Review

Phase 1

TIM

TIM

IATR

IATR

SRR

SRR

SDR

SDR Pathfinder

DART OrbitalExpressAAS Flt Test


Program PlanningProgram Planningand Controland Control ArchitectureArchitecture

DefinitionDefinition

Arch. Mgr.Arch. MgrArch. MgrCTVAlternate Access

Bob ArmstrongCharlie Dill

Pete RodriguezSteve DavisC. Crumbly

AirframeAirframe(LaRC)(LaRC)

ManagerLSE

D. BowlesJulie Fowler

OperationsOperations(KSC)(KSC)

ManagerLSE

Scott Huzar

Flight MechanicsFlight Mechanics(MSFC)(MSFC)

ManagerLSE

Scott JacksonJ. Mulqueen

IVHMIVHM(ARC)(ARC)

ManagerAsst. Mgr./LSE

Bill KahleKevin Flynn

NASA UniqueNASA Unique(JSC)(JSC)

David LeestmaBarry Boswell

ConsultantsConsultants

J. SeemannM. Stiles

Steve Creech, ManagerRose Allen, ManagerJerry Cook, Deputy

SubsystemsSubsystems(GRC)(GRC)

ManagerLSE

Mike SkorTom Hill

Program IntegrationProgram Integration& Risk Management& Risk Management

Danny Davis, ManagerBart Graham, Deputy

PropulsionPropulsion(MSFC)(MSFC)

ManagerDep. Mgr.Lead Sys. Engr.

Garry LylesSteve RichardsGeorge Young

Flt. Demos & Exp. Integ.Flt. Demos & Exp. Integ.(MSFC)(MSFC)

Manager

2nd Generation RLV Organization

Procurement LegalProcurement Legal

Sys. EngineeringSys. Engineering& Integration& Integration

Dale Thomas, ManagerChuck Smith, Deputy

Program OfficeProgram OfficeManagerDeputyQuality Assurance Man.Chief EngineerTech. Asst.ESAMSA

Dennis SmithDan Dumbacher

C. ChesserR. Hughes

B. MorrisJill HollandJudy Dunn

E.G. F. Wojtalik, G. Oliver, B. LindstromExt. Rqmts. Assessment Team


Project Description


Alternate Access to Station Project

AAS ARCHITECTURE OFFICEManager - Chris Crumbly Asst Manager/LSE - James PoeTechnology Manager – Patton DowneyArchitecture Manager – Melinda SelfResident Mgr JSC – Saroj PatelTechnical Assistant – Paul HambyTechnical Assistant – Bill Peters

Business Manager Richard LeonardProgram AnalystLouise Hammaker Contracting OfficeEarl PendleyBetty KilpatrickConfiguration Management Specialist Thad HenrySRM&QAVacant

FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT OFFICEDART Project

ENGINEERING DIRECTORATEArchitecture Insight

SPACE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTORATEArchitecture Insight

NASA UNIQUE PROJECT OFFICETechnology Risk ReductionISS Program Interface


Alternate Access to Station (AAS) Project

Purpose– Funding is intended to enable NASA and private industry to establish and use alternative means of

access to the International Space Station. These funds will be used to purchase services when they become available; however, in the near-term they will support:

System analysis studies Technology development or operational technology demonstrations Flight demonstrations to reduce risks associated with near-term commercial launch systems to service Space

Station cargo requirements

Benefits– Autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations technology development critical for both AAS and

2nd Generation RLV applications– Increased competition– Near-term flight opportunities– Enabling commercial capabilities for ISS-unique needs– Incubation of a business base for the 2nd Generation RLV– ISS logistics contingency capability and operational flexibility

Risks to be Mitigated– Lack of proven, domestic automated rendezvous and proximity sensors, software, avionics, and

rendezvous techniques– Gaps in industry understanding of ISS vicinity operations and of available resources for

docking/berthing, power, and communications resources– Lack of a sustainable market that would drive private investments for technology advances


Alternate Access to Station (AAS)

Charter: Demonstrate an alternative access capability for the ISS

AAS is a multi-phased, incremental approach to enable commercial suppliers to service a portion of the ISS logistics requirements

Phase 1 – Concept Definition and Technical Risk Reduction– Technical Risk Reduction through DART, Orbital Express, and TA 9.8 efforts– Concept Definition

Multiple contractor teams will develop concepts through Systems Design Review NASA will contribute lessons learned, technical advice, and technical assistance

– Phase 1 products will be used to develop the AAS system flight demonstration RFP

Phase 2 – System Flight Demonstration and Technology Investment – (PATHFINDER)– Additional enabling technologies may be funded if required

– NASA will fund the demonstration of at least one commercial AAS concept

– The goals of the AAS flight demonstration are: Demonstrate concept feasibility and affordability Further maturation of autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations technologies Demonstrate compliance with ISS safety and operational requirements Operate as a pathfinder to future 2GRLV autonomous cargo vehicles

Phase 3 – AAS Service Acquisition– If the need is defined and a cost effective capability exists then commercial services will be procured

– NASA expects the service acquisition phase to transition from Code R to Code M


AAS – Master Schedule

ID WBS DESCRIPTION ES EF

1 1.5 ALTERNATE ACCESS TO STATION 03/08/02 09/28/07

2 1.5.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 06/15/04 08/15/06

3 1.5.1.1 PROJECT MILESTONES 06/15/04 08/15/06

4 1.5.1.1 DART 06/15/04 06/15/04

5 1.5.1.1 XS-11 11/15/04 11/15/04

6 1.5.1.1 ORB EXP 05/15/06 05/15/06

7 1.5.1.1 AAS FLIGHT DEMO 08/15/06 08/15/06

8 1.5.4 CONTRACTURAL PROCUREMENTS 03/29/02 09/28/07

9 1.5.4.1 ISS REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION (USA) 03/29/02 09/28/07

10 1.5.4.2 PHASE 1 CONCEPT DEFINITION 05/10/02 05/16/03

11 1.5.4.2 CONTRACT AWARD 05/10/02 05/10/02

12 1.5.4.2.1 CONTRACTOR ACTIVITIES 05/20/02 05/16/03

13 1.5.4.2 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED 05/20/02 05/20/02

14 1.5.4.2 TECHNICAL INTERCHANGE MEETING 06/17/02 06/17/02

15 1.5.4.2 IATR 09/16/02 09/16/02

16 1.5.4.2 SRR 12/23/02 12/23/02

17 1.5.4.2 SDR 05/16/03 05/16/03

18 1.5.4.3 TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS 10/01/03 09/29/06

19 1.5.4.4 PHASE 2 SYSTEM FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION 06/26/03 08/15/06

20 1.5.4.4 RELEASE RFP 06/26/03 06/26/03

21 1.5.4.4 AWARD PHASE 2 01/05/04 01/05/04

22 1.5.4.4 AAS SYSTEM FLIGHT DEMO 01/06/04 08/15/06

23 1.5.4.4 OTV 01/06/04 08/15/06

24 1.5.4.4 LV 08/16/04 08/15/06

25 1.5.4.5 PHASE 3 AAS SERVICE ACQUISITION 10/03/05 09/28/07

26 1.5.5 NASA/DOD PARTNERSHIPS 03/08/02 09/29/06

27 1.5.5.1 DARPA ORBITAL EXPRESS 03/08/02 05/15/06

28 1.5.5.4 INSIGHT (GSFC/WALLOPS) 05/01/02 09/29/06

29 1.5.7 TECHNICAL RISK REDUCTION 05/01/02 06/15/04

30 1.5.7 DART FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION 05/01/02 06/15/04

06/15

11/15

05/15

08/15

05/10

05/20

06/17

09/16

12/23

05/16

06/26

01/05

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q12001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


History


AAS surveyed industry for concepts and supported NRA 8-30

(RLV Risk Reduction)– In Fall 00, NASA funded industry team 90-day studies

Assess ISS Visiting Vehicle (VV) requirements Provide architecture concepts to meet AAS requirements Identify necessary advanced development and risk reduction efforts Results received Dec 00 Industry Teams:

– Many Diverse Concepts Proposed 7 of 8 teams proposed new development projects Payload delivery concepts included ISS docking, berthing, and EVA transfer

– NRA 8-30 proposals evaluated and some revealed high synergy with AAS Flight demonstrations of proximity operations/automated rendezvous technologies Technical Risk Reduction Selections

Orbital Sciences Corporation DART Option for Kistler automated rendezvous experiment

OSC Coleman Aerospace Boeing Lockheed

Microcosm Kistler Aerospace HMX, Ltd. Andrews Space & Tech.

Previous AAS Studies


Mated Operations– Due to damage potential, ISSP does not endorse

VV docking to APAS on USOS*– Cargo transfer options:

• CBM available for berthing operations (w = 50 inches)

• USOS manual airlock/EVA retrieval possible (w = 24 inches — requires NBL testing)

• JEM Automated airlock possible — any EVA transfer design must not preclude JEM option (w = 22 inches)

– Probable mission duration• Light mission: 4-7 days• Heavy mission: 2-4 weeks

* Decision under review by ISSPO

Visiting Vehicle Requirements Interpretations

– Space-based (ISS formation flying) cargo

transfer vehicles undesirable– ISS-based (attached to ISS) cargo transfer

vehicles may be considered– NASA has oversight for duration of VV mission

and requires periodic VV reporting/telemetry– VV developer must maintain relationship with

ISSP and MOD control boards

Other– CBMs, FRGFs, sensors, reflectors, etc. are not

GFE– Some USOS modifications for rendezvous and

proximity operations acceptable• AAS funds hardware/software changes and their

integration• ISS Baseline cargo delivery methods must not be

adversely affected

Cargo– Light Payload (500 lbm min.) will accommodate

90% of critical spares “Horseblanket”

– Cargo removed from ISS will be considered “waste”—recovery not required

– Heavy mission must remove 50% of delivered cargo mass/Light mission is exempt*

*Superceded by recommendation from subsequent study by USA that 100% of mass/volume delivered should be returned or disposed

Intercenter Team Findings — Post-90-day Study


Current Solutions

Rendezvous and Proximity Operations

Shuttle– Far-Field: Ground Based Tracking– Mid-Range: Ku-Band Radar– Near-Field: Trajectory Control System (TCS) & HHL (Hand-Held Lidar) & Video

Screen Overlays

Russian Progress– Far-Field: Ground Based Tracking– Mid-Range: KURS Radar — Omni Antennas on ISS– Near Field: KURS Radar — Directional Antennas on ISS or TORU

HTV and ATV (planned)– Far-Field: Absolute GPS or Ground Tracking– Mid-Range: Relative GPS

JEM PROX Integrated Into JEM Compatible GPS Receivers Integrated Into HTV

– Near-Field: ESA Laser Sensor ATV will also use TBD video sensor for docking (to be developed) HTV requires only coarse data sufficient to approach berthing box


1 - Far-Range is understood, demonstrated, and reliable. 2 - Optical sensors available and tested but need mods to satisfy VV needs. VGS currently out to ~150 m would need range increase (AVGS out to 1.5 km)

and obsolete parts update, TCS ~ 1.5 km would need relative attitude incorporation, removal of crew interaction requirements, and obsolete parts update. Both would need reflector/target integration or verification for applicability.

3 - Current ISS configuration does not allow Far-Range and Near-Range sensors performance to overlap for VV missions; therefore, a Mid-Range solution is needed for all VV missions.

4 - Radar technology exists to perform Mid Range, but power and weight hits are prohibitive for small vehicles. Also, no systems currently available.5 - Lidar technology shows promise but requires technology development to get necessary ranges and real-time capability. Plus, power and weight are

potential impacts.6 - RGPS requires a space-to-space comm link (and an adequate GPS unit on the ISS), cannot be performed further out than comm link range; if comm link

can be extended into the Far-Range ranges (and the appropriate GPS unit installed/accessed on ISS) then RGPS could be a solution to the Mid-Range problem. Technology development issues should be workable.

7 - SV Diff can work starting in the Far-Range but as the range decreases, an increase is needed in the number of updates and eventually a space-to-space comm link will be required. Even with space- to-space link, SV Diff will be a demonstration challenge for Mid-Range (performance issue).

8 - Currently, no U.S. space-to-space communication systems exist that can satisfy visiting vehicle requirements (required by VVIDD).

Launch Mate

Ground-Based Tracking, TDRS Tracking, Absolute GPSOptical

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Far Range Mid Range Near Range

Radar

Lidar

SV Diff

RGPS

Proven technology/technique (No or Low Risk)

Some technological/technique development needed (Medium Risk)

Major technological/technique development needed (High Risk)

~0.5 km~40km

8

P-I-L

Navigation Sensor Concepts

Space to Space Comm Range Space to Space Comm Range


Space-to-Space Communication

Existing Systems– UHF System

Many AAS Concepts Propose Using the “Existing UHF” – Some Significant Issues System Is Designed for STS – Primarily Used for EVA Comm UHF range is insufficient to support VV trajectory requirements No Parts Readily Available – No GFE That Can Be Provided to AAS Development Effort Would Be Required by AAS to Be Usable for This Application None of AAS Concepts Proposed Any Development Effort.

– Service Module S-Band (Russian) Interfaces With USOS Challenging

– JEM S-Band Not Available Until 2005 Technology Transfer Issues

Options– Use JEM with compatible Radio on VV (First Mission NET 2005)– Replicate JEM System and Add to ISS & VV– Mod Existing UHF System– Procure & Implement Existing TDRSS (NASA Standard Transceiver) System


Existing vehicles — radar and “pilot-in-the-loop” Shuttle — ground tracking, on board radar, TCS, HHL, & “pilot-in-the-loop” Progress — ground tracking, KURS radar, &

contingency TORU teleoperated “pilot-in-the-loop”

Baseline vehicles plan new automated designs HTV - GPS, relative GPS (not yet demonstrated), ESA

laser sensor for range/rate ATV - GPS, relative GPS (not yet demonstrated), ESA

laser sensor/TBD video sensor

Mid-range navigation to ISS poses biggest challenge

Current ISS configuration does not allow far-range sensors to overlap near-range sensors

Lidar is promising but requires technology development Radar solves mid-range issue but brings power, weight,

and availability concerns U.S. space-to-space communications must be enhanced

or use of JEM assets must be assured

New U.S. visiting vehicle has rendezvous and proximity operations issues

Overall systems solution requires USOS asset upgrade and/or use of JEM assets

JEM not available before FY2005 and has potential usage issues (ITAR/technology transfer)

AAS Study Results — Proximity Operations

Rendezvous navigation sensors require development

– Shuttle “pilot-in-the-loop” system not viable for AAS– No single system solves the problem

Optimum scenario would be single sensor or data source

for navigation Three separate solutions required (far-, mid-, and near-range)

with overlap for hand-off

– Suite of sensors needed

Automated Rendezvous and Proximity Operations require risk reduction

Automated Rendezvous and Proximity Operations require risk reduction


Alternate Access to Station service acquisition is prematureAlternate Access to Station service acquisition is premature

AAS Study Results — Vehicle Development

Launch Vehicle/Cargo Vehicle proposals all require significant development

– IOC of FY03 service is not realistic with present state of the industry– Significant technology development required = high risk– Technologies to be advanced or deployed include: space-to-space communication

system, mid-range relative navigation sensors, near-field navigation sensors, cargo integration and delivery systems, GN&C, docking hardware

ISS Visiting Vehicle requirements are challenging

New ISS rendezvous/proximity operations assets probable and must be funded by AAS

– Space to Space Com

– Reflectors

Cargo integration and delivery system concepts need to converge– On-demand payload integration and delivery technology requires deployment to

industry– Ground-based logistics methodology requires some additional attention


Industry has not proven that service acquisition is available without significant risks

– Technical Risk (technology is not proven)

– Business Risk (high non-recurring costs)

New ideas can enter the industry if we implement new business approaches– NASA commercial contracting policies present a perceived barrier

– Disruptive innovations can be a catalyst for change in the industry

Automated Rendezvous and Proximity Operations require technical risk reduction– Demonstration missions

– Advanced sensor development

– Space-to-space communications enhancement

The ability to autonomously dock and deliver payload to the ISS is a critical requirement for the 2nd Generation RLV and key to the SLI program:

– Technology is essential

– Significant effort is required to mature this technology

As a part of the 2nd Generation RLV program, AAS can be utilized to meet significant NASA needs using innovative methods

AAS Study Conclusions


Forward Plan


Option 4 Chosen

Option E Chosen

Trade Study for AAS Implementation

Several strategies were studied by NASA for AAS implementation:1. Development of rendezvous sensor suite and avionics (i.e., a “smart” front end)

2. Development of a NASA orbital transfer vehicle

3. Conversion to a technology development and demonstration project

4. Incremental approach of technology development, demonstration, and service acquisition

It quickly became apparent that Option 4 was the best strategy– Several implementation approaches were considered:

A. Small business set-aside for emerging aerospace providers

B. Addition of AAS requirements to NRA 8-30 (2GRLV) Cycle 2 solicitation leading to traditional contract

C. Commercial contract for full AAS systems

D. Cooperative agreements with milestone payments beginning with concept development leading to flight demonstration

E. Traditional concept design (study only) contract followed by innovative flight demonstration procurement


FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

Major Milestones DARTFlight Demo

Decision Gate 1

Decision Gate 2

Alternate Access Strategy

Orbital Express

XSS-11

Orbital Rendezvous

Station Keeping

Fly Around

Approach

RSO

STS-87 & 95 OE ASTRO (6M)

Orbital Rendezvous

Station Keeping

Fly Around

Approach

Inspect

Dock

Fluid Transfer

Component Replacement

NEXTSAT

DART (24Hrs)

Orbital Rendezvous

Station Keeping

Fly Around

Approach

Inspect

Collision Avoidance

MULBCOM

PATHFINDERISS Ops & Safety

Validation

Orbital Rendezvous

Station Keeping

ISS Approach & Berth

CAM

Communication & Control

ISS Departure

Return to earth

VGS

AVGS

AVGS II

LAMP

OTHER SENSORS

ISS C&C

TA 9.8 Efforts

AUTO RENDEZVOUS AND PROXIMITY OPERATIONS (ARPO) TECHNOLOGIES

Communications and Control

Sensors

GN&C Algorithms

Range Finder

GPS/Relative GPS

State Vector Differencing

Technology Risk Reduction

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

TRL

FY08 FY09 FY10

XSS-11

AAS SERVICE

ARPO TECHNOLOGY

ORBITAL SPACE PLANE

GOV’T/COMMERCIAL SATELLITE SERVICING

Pathfinder• Ground Tests, Simulations,

Demonstrations• System Flight Demonstration

SRR

SRR

SDR

SDR

IATR

IATR

TI

M

TI

M

Requirements and Concepts• Requirements Definition• Concept Definition


AAS Strategy

The AAS strategy is a phased and systematic approach to ensure that SLI technology requirements will be met while offering the opportunity for innovative companies to participate and begin commercial AAS services or at least make progress towards that goal.

– Phase 1 (Underway) Reduce the risks associated with Automated Rendezvous/Proximity Operations (ARPO) through

technology development and demonstration — initial contracts secured Orbital’s Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technologies (DART) Partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) on Orbital Express

Pursue definition of requirements with our ISS customer — ongoing Fund more detailed definition of industry concepts — selection expected early summer 2002 Evaluate need for and potentially procure target satellite for rendezvous flight demonstrations

– Phase 2 (Projected mid-FY03 start) Perform the efforts necessary to enable the purchase of AAS mission services

Invest in additional technology development identified in Phase 1 Demonstrate viable AAS systems on-orbit

Investigating innovative procurement approaches for this phase

– Phase 3 (Projected FY06 start) AAS service acquisition commences Acquisition of services is dependent on the maturity of flight demonstrations, technology development;

ISS needs; cost justification

Phase IAAS Logistics Resupply

Requirements and Concept Definition


AAS Logistics Resupply Requirements

A 3-month study was conducted by USA to define AAS Logistics Re-Supply for the ISS.

Scope of study included determination of mission needs, cargo launch requirements/constraints, ISS/crew requirements for orbital transfer, and de-orbit needs.

Design Reference Missions for several payload cases were defined.

USA under contract to support continued ISS OPS education for contractors.


AAS Logistics Resupply Requirements

A cargo matrix was derived from the ISS Logistics Data Base and U.S. ISS experiment users.

– Cargo may include ORU’s, Mid-deck Locker Equivalent (MLE) packages of crew support items including dry and wet consumables, and science experiment support items and return samples.

– Cargo assessments will be provided for: Pre-launch environmental controls and processing requirements Launch environmental controls requirements Launch restraint and packaging Orbital transfer requirements Cargo Hazard levels


Design Reference Missions

DRM ID DRM1 DRM2 DRM3 DRM4 DRM5

Description Quick Response

Max pressurized

Max unpressurized

Min

pressurized

Min unpressurized

Total Mass (cargo and accommodations)

1500 kg/flight 17300 kg/year 6300 kg/year 5660 kg/year 2940 kg/year

Volume (Pressurized cases include accommodations Unpressurized cases do not include accommodations)

90 CTBE/flight 1025 CTBE/year 350 ft3/year 340 CTBE/year 160 ft3/year

ISS Attach period

Min ~ 6 days Max ~ 35 days





Response Period

45 Days < One year < One year < One year < One year

Recommended Flights per Year based on ISS OPS plan

N/A 5 5 2 2


AAS Logistics Resupply Service Concept Definition

Multiple contracts of 12 months duration are planned for AAS Logistics Resupply Service Concept Definition.

– Initial requirements will be based on ISS requirements for visiting vehicles (SSP 50235 IDD) and the USA study results.

– Requirements from USA study are bounds for the effort, but are not constraints for a point design.

Scope of the service concept includes all requirements for processing and transporting cargo from the Earth to the ISS.

– It is highly desirable, but not mandatory, that the service include a cargo return capability.

– ISS vicinity operations, ISS docking/berthing, ISS resources (i.e., power, communications) are critical to development of a feasible service.

– Payload transfer operations should include an assessment of ISS human factors and crew time.


Contractor proposed service concept definition will include:

The systems requirements, design, and operations concept will address the launch facility, ground processing, launch vehicle, carrier/upper stage, ISS rendezvous/proximity operations, berthing/docking with ISS, payload transfer, and payload return capability.

– Launch facility considerations include availability, attainable orbits, range safety, vehicle restrictions, hazard requirements, and usage costs.

– Launch vehicle considerations include (make or buy decision) performance capability, availability, unique ground processing, reliability, expendable versus reusable, and cost.

– Carrier/Upper Stage system design should address performance capability, payload capacity/packaging, reusability, and compatibility with SSP-50235.

Systems requirements, Operations concept, Systems design definition,

Identification of enabling technologies, Service plan*

AAS Logistics Resupply Service Concept Definition

* Service plan should include a cost estimate for service implementation.


AAS Logistics Resupply Service

Acknowledged Technology gaps exist in the Orbital Transfer Vehicle element, that includes autonomous rendezvous and proximity sensors, software, avionics, and rendezvous techniques.

Identification of key enabling technologies will be requested for potential future efforts.

NASA is looking for innovative and cost-effective approaches to meet the requirements of AAS Logistics Resupply Service.


AAS Procurement Approach

One aspect of AAS is the push for innovative procurement practices. Phase 1 utilizing traditional procurement methods

– Products from Phase 1 activities (requirements definition, concept definition, technical risk reduction) can be procured efficiently through existing procurement processes

– Through NRA 8-30, Kistler Aerospace, United Space Lines, and others proved that emerging aerospace providers can compete and win major NASA contracts within the current structure

Phase 2 procurement methods are TBD– Technology investments for Phase 2 will likely be procured through existing means

– NASA intends to study innovative practices for procurement of Phase 2 flight demonstrations

– Some procurement options we are studying include: Commercial Contracts Cooperative Agreements Prizes

Phase 3 procurement methods are TBD– AAS intends to capitalize on current efforts within NASA for procurement innovation and reform

– Phase 2 procurement options may be adopted for Phase 3 service acquisition

– The very nature of service acquisition, rather than hardware acquisition, will drive innovation in Phase 3 procurement processes


Management Philosophy

AAS could serve as a change agent for the government-industry relationship

NASA seeks to purchase services rather than vehicles

We are committed to pursuing technology advances in support of 2nd Gen. RLV

However, we are equally committed to providing an alternate means of delivering domestic cargo to the ISS by any means permissible by law and by policy.


AAS Summary

NASA has selected a strategy to implement Alternate Access in a way that meets the original charter.

AAS will pursue an incremental strategy for enabling commercial AAS services utilizing a multi-phase approach of technology risk reduction, NASA-funded concept definition, demonstration of flight systems capable of meeting AAS mission needs, and initial AAS service acquisition.

Alternate Access will be managed within the 2nd Generation RLV Program as part of the Office of Aerospace Technology-led Space Launch Initiative.

Alternate Access is responsible for developing key technology for the 2nd Generation RLV Program and for enabling commercial firms to meet potential ISS needs.

When services become available, the Office of Space Flight will procure such services as the need is justified.


O’Keefe Quote

“NASA was created as an agency of the Government: – to do those things that are beyond the horizons and

capabilities of individuals and the private sector in the realm of aeronautics and space exploration;

– to develop and demonstrate capabilities and possibilities that, quite simply, would not be done if we did not undertake them.

In so doing, we often go where no one has gone before, and in that effort there are risks and uncertainties. But we have a responsibility to our ultimate stakeholders—the taxpayers—to make every effort to manage those risks and understand those uncertainties.”

--NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe

2/27/2002 NASA Budget Hearing

House of Rep, Committee on Science

Space Launch Initiative 2 nd Generation RLV Program Alternate Access to Station May 2002 Update.

Documents

updatealternate access

updatespace transportation

risk reduction tasksapproval

source selection official

managerjerry cook

managerchuck smith

stationproject descriptionmay

managerrose allen