1 / 16

Responsive Air Launch

Responsive Air Launch. Mr. Warren Frick, Orbital Sciences Corporation Dr. Joe Guerci, Deputy Director, DARPA/SPO Mr. Brian Horais, Schafer Corporation 2 nd Annual Responsive Space Conference 22 April 2004. Military Utility.

elon
Télécharger la présentation

Responsive Air Launch

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Responsive Air Launch Mr. Warren Frick, Orbital Sciences Corporation Dr. Joe Guerci, Deputy Director, DARPA/SPO Mr. Brian Horais, Schafer Corporation 2nd Annual Responsive Space Conference 22 April 2004

  2. Military Utility • 2002 Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS) Mission Need Statement (MNS) • Establishes the requirement for responsive, on-demand access to, through and from space. • This requirement encompasses the spacelift missions of delivering payloads to, or from, mission orbit and changing the orbit of existing systems to better satisfy new mission requirements. • It also requires on-demand, flexible, and cost effective operations. SOURCE: RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) February 2003, 04 - Advanced Component Development and Prototypes (ACD&P)PE 0604855F Operationally Responsive Launch, Project A013

  3. Air Launch Study • Study task awarded to Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) in OCT 03 to: • “Address the feasibility of air-launching tactically significant payloads from existing military aircraft with minimal or no modification to the aircraft payload interfaces.” • 6 month study includes: • Assessment of candidate technologies • Preliminary Concept Design(s) • Evaluation/Downselect of Candidate Design Approaches • Development of Program Plan • Final Report • This presentation and paper summarize selected findings from the DARPA/SPO Air Launch study

  4. “Wooden Round” • The term “Wooden Round” is used in reference to munitions logistics • The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is another example of a “wooden round” tactical munition. • JDAM can have its mission parameters loaded after it is on the launch aircraft. • consists of a warhead and guidance tailkit stored as “wooden rounds” and then loaded onto the warheads • The M26 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is a current example • The M26 rocket is a “wooden round” with a shelf life of at least 15 years • The rockets are assembled, checked, and packaged in a dual-purpose launch-storage tube at the factory • This design provides for tactical loading and firing of the rocket without troop assembly or detailed inspection • Current Space Launch Systems are custom, one-off assemblies – the opposite of a wooden round JDAM • “WOODEN ROUND” Characteristics • Long shelf life • Self-contained system • Insensitive munitions • Minimal field assembly • Minimal inspection before use • Produced for low cost

  5. Responsiveness Responsive Space = ƒ(LAUNCH VEHICLE, SPACECRAFT, PROCESS) • Launch Vehicle Variable • Pegasus, F-15 SLV, Rascal, Minotaur, Taurus, Falcon SLV, EELV (ESPA), Shuttle • Transportability across LV’s allows target of opportunity launch • Responsive Payloads need not be large (500 to 1000 lbs) • Spacecraft Variable • Eliminate design and build time by developing a Modular Architecture with open standardized & reconfigurable interfaces • 1 meter diameter payload provides significant capability • Process Variable • Reduce demand with autonomous checkout and ops • Adopt “Wooden Round” approach of tactical munitions • Direct data link to user

  6. Recent Assessments DoD Office of Space Architect (predecessor of NSSA) conducted 1998 Launch-on-Demand (LOD) Impact Study, with findings on Technology, Systems and Operations in the 2010 – 2020 timeframe GREEN: Anticipated technology/program development will support LOD YELLOW: Requires redirection/augmentation of technology/program development RED: Requires new technology or major change in present development program Shortfalls exist in ALL ASPECTS of Responsive Spacelift Development for quick response (1-Day) mission capabilities

  7. Parameter Space During the study competing approaches for responsive spacelift were evaluated against a set of common parameters to establish the strengths and weaknesses of potential solutions. Cost was not included in the parameter space

  8. Ground Launch Limitations • Existing US launch sites are geographically constrained, limited in available launch directions and must use existing range capabilities. • representative launch azimuth constraints for the Eastern and Western US Continental launch sites are depicted below

  9. Flyout Times Air Launch Flexibility Overwater Air Launch eliminates need for ground-based range control 2 hrs 4 hrs Air Launch enables positioning of Drop Point to intercept orbital plane coincident with desired overflight conditions 8 hrs West Coast-Based Launch Aircraft can reach majority of Pacific Launch Area within 8 hours (@ 400 to 450 knots) Pacific Launch Area

  10. Air Launch Advantages • Air-launched space launch vehicles have many performance advantages over traditional ground-launched vehicles: • Altitude ignition increases optimal nozzle expansion ratio • Rocket energy requirements are reduced by launch aircraft kinetic and potential energy • Air pressure at altitude is greatly reduced from air pressure at sea level • There are also operational advantages to air launch: • Rendezvous opportunities increase • The first stage is reusable • The mission is recallable • Weather can be avoided • Any runway of adequate length is a potential launch site • The Carrier Aircraft can serve as the vehicle transporter if needed • Over-water launch operations increase flexibility

  11. Aircraft Choice Air Launch from EXISTING Military Aircraft eliminates the need to develop new launch platforms and integrates the responsive launch process into existing force structures and crew processes • External launch • B-52 • 25 K Lb Pylon Mount • 500 # to LEO • Internal Launch • C-17 • 170 K Lb Internal Carriage • 1000#+ to LEO F-15, B-1 and B-2 capabilities were also evaluated but did not meet mass or length requirements

  12. B-52H Space Launch Capability • The B-52H launch aircraft imposes a rocket mass constraint of 25,000 lbs. for externally carried stores on each wing pylon • Various rocket configurations were investigated • Performance ranged from 297 lbs for a solid rocket using Orion-heritage motors with Pegasus mass fractions • to well over 500 lbs for a liquid 3-stage vehicle that would be very logistically challenging to launch and expensive to build • Very high performance motors such as H2/LOX and air turbo ramjets were also considered • The optimum study concept achieved a rocket performance of 488 lbs to a 500 km, 97.4 degree inclination • Three stage solid rocket with a 1-meter payload envelope • Nearly twice the payload mass fraction of the current Pegasus XL • B-52H Space Launch • 488 lb payload • 1 meter payload diam. • Launch to 500 km • 97.4 degree inclination • Total vehicle 25,000 lb • Two vehicles per A/C

  13. Space Tasking Order(STO) Range Coordination Mission Planning 5 13 Process Compression How it is Done Today in 12 months + How MARVAL Will do it in < 24 hours Minimized by Assembly Process Existing 12-month+ GN&C Process Pre-Done Tasks A sequential and iterative process • Launch Vehicle Testing • Accomplished during Factory Buildout • Periodic “Health & Status Checks in storage Duration (weeks) 19 14 13 5 < 1 ______________ 52 wks Eliminated by Self-contained Range Control Time Between Steps 19 Launch Vehicle Tests 14 Process Durations by Category Duration (HOURS) < 6 <12 _______ < 24 HOURS Dynamic Tasks <12 Dynamic Mission Planning Software <1 Load & Launch <6 Load & Launch

  14. Orbital Calculations Stage Drop-offs Control System S/W Collision Avoidance Mission Planning • Space launch mission planning is a complex process even from fixed launch sites • Orbital solutions, stage drop-offs, vehicle dynamics and collision avoidance do not always converge • Human intervention is often necessary to derive a solution • When a mobile, air-launched capability is added, the problems becomes even more complex • Current practices blend computer solutions with developer expertise to guide the solution over a period of weeks • The challenge for Responsive Space Launch is to develop an automated and optimized complex process that requires minimal operator involvement and can produce launch solutions within hours Mission Planning is a dynamic, iterative process

  15. Time-extended solutions are based on pre-solved optimization Update solution with small time increment variations (minutes) Easy to maintain solutions for thousands of possible orbital tasking scenarios Operator not required to conduct full non-linear optimization solution Mission Planning non-linear optimization batch solution pre-conducted offline No closed final solution Currently solved iteratively with human expert in the loop to guide deviations to solutions Not amenable to responsive launch solutions False Local Solutions Pre-solved Optimum Global Exact Solution Multidimensional Objective Surface Defines potential solutions Time-extended Solution Time-Extended Solution Provides Approach to Support Responsive Space Mission Planning Pre-Solved Exact Solution at time ‘t’ Real-time solution ∆t Updated Solution at ( t + ∆ t )

  16. Conclusions • 2002 ORS MNS : • establishes the requirement for responsive, on-demand access to, through and from space • It also requires on-demand, flexible, and cost effective operations • FALCON and RASCAL are examples of ORS initiatives • Responsive Space Lift is a function of the launch vehicle, the payload and the process support. • True process compression will require departures from the highly individualized and hands-on processes associated with existing space launches in the US The most time-critical ORS missions for tactically sized payloads can best be accomplished using air launch from existing military aircraft to achieve the desired timelines

More Related