D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

112
Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved. Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 1 www.sei.aero SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems SPACEWORKS ENGINEERING, INC. (SEI) Senior Futurist: Mr. A.C. Charania Project Engineer: Mr. Jon G. Wallace Technical Fellow: Dr. John R. Olds NASA KENNEDY SPACE CENTER (KSC) System Engineer: Mr. Edgar Zapata IAC-04-V.2.08 55 th International Astronautical Congress 04-08 October 2004, Vancouver, Canada

Transcript of D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Page 1: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 1

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

SPACEWORKS ENGINEERING, INC. (SEI)

Senior Futurist:Mr. A.C. Charania

Project Engineer:Mr. Jon G. Wallace

Technical Fellow:Dr. John R. Olds

NASA KENNEDY SPACE CENTER (KSC)

System Engineer: Mr. Edgar Zapata

IAC-04-V.2.0855th International Astronautical Congress04-08 October 2004, Vancouver, Canada

Page 2: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Introduction

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 2

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 3: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 3

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Space Shuttle Facilities at NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

Page 4: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF)

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 4

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 5: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Turnaround Processing Activities

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 5

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 6: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Imagination and Reality in the OPF

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 6

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 7: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Overview

Quantify Shuttle Lessons Learned

New Operational Approaches

New Launch Architectures

Near, Mid, and Far Term

Systems Modeling

Metrics Assessment

The application of novel, not yet studied, but extr emely viable and promising options for an entirely operable reusable launch system design is now feasible based on advances in operations analysis, integrating tools, models, and in understanding design margin and sub-system operational characteristics.

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 7

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 8: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Motivation

D4Ops (Design for Operations) was a nine-month study effort that was conducted by SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) under sponsorship of the NASA Kennedy Space Center Systems Engineering Office. D4Ops was a ground operations-focused study designed to quantitatively determine the potential benefits of several proposed new D4Ops approaches to space vehicle configuration and operations. The study aimed to determine the key compromises and trade-offs between weight, cost, operations, and safety when implementing new D4Ops approaches.

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 8

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 9: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Finding New Approaches

The study leveraged findings from NASA’s Root Cause Analysis (RCA) project that is continuing to document driving maintenance tasks on the STS orbiter. Using the RCA database as an anchor point, the present study developed a list of several proposed D4Ops Approaches that have a potential to positively influence the operational figures-of-merit used to evaluate next-generation space vehicle designs. Typical “D4Ops Approaches” include: reducing overall parts count, integrating functions across subsystems, eliminating hypergolic propellants, reducing numbers of tanks and fluids, etc.

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 9

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 10: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Application of Approaches

To provide relevancy, three different space vehicle contexts were used as a backdrop to the analyses conducted in the study: Orbital Space Plane (OSP), TSTO RLV, and a new, advanced RLV concept designed for streamlined operations. These contexts were chosen based on NASA’s current Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP). The goal is to compare but not replicate previous analyses.

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 10

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 11: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Process

SEI used its multi-disciplinary conceptual design environment comprised of in-house and government/industry standard computational design tools to evaluate each contextand determine the positive and negative impacts on weights, costs, performance, ops, reliability, etc. that result from the application of the proposed D4Ops Approaches. Baseline configurations using a state-of-practice design philosophy were first created. The numerical results were calibrated to design information available from ongoing studies at NASA and in industry -- not to be competitive, but to ensure the results are relevant. Once a satisfactory baseline was established, sensitivities were conducted on each of the D4Ops Approaches taken individually. In addition, a single roll-up of all applicable D4Ops Approaches was analyzed for each context.

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 11

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 12: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Selection of Best Approaches

Using multi-attribute decision making methods, the candidate D4Ops Approaches were assessed and ranked based on quantitative benefits to several key figures-of-merit. The study drew conclusions and prioritized the most promising D4Ops Approaches across the three contexts in terms of their potential to positively impact ground operations costs and cycle times without detrimentally affecting weight, non-recurring cost, or vehicle safety. The study concluded in January 2004. The results and the associated D4Ops rankings will be made available to current space vehicle design teams to be used as a decision-support resource for ongoing activities.

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 12

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Overall Ranking of Technology Portfolios: Probabilistic @ 80% Certainty

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

No Tech

Tech A

Tech B

Tech C

Tech D

Tech E

Tech B+C

Tech B+D

Tech C+D

Tech C+E

Tech D+E

Tech C+D+E

Overall Evaluation Criterion (OEC)Based upon multiple metrics which are aggregated an d ranked using decision making methods such as

TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) for a particular weighting scen ario

Cost and Safety Focus

Geometry and Operations Focus

Broad Average of Scenarios

Tech

nolo

gy P

ortfo

lios

(fea

sibl

e te

chno

logy

com

bina

tions

tha

t mee

t fun

ding

con

stra

ints

)

-1.2%

0.0%

0.1%

8.7%

-0.4%

5.2%

0.7%

1.5%

2.5%

5.1%

9.3%

17.2%

-1.1%

0.0%

-0.8%

3.7%

-0.5%

4.8%

0.6%

1.4%

2.3%

1.5%

5.2%

10.3%

-5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

Ap

proa

ch

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

Gross Liftoff Weight (with CES)

Dry Weight

6.6%

2.6%

-0.3%

14.0%

2.0%

0.9%

5.7%

6.2%

10.3%

8.4%

17.0%

55.1%

2.2%

1.1%

-1.2%

19.7%

2.7%

1.5%

3.6%

3.4%

3.5%

10.0%

18.6%

36.0%

-10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

Ap

pro

ach

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

TFU Cost

DDT&E Cost

6.6%

2.6%

-0.3%

14.0%

2.0%

0.9%

5.7%

6.2%

10.3%

8.4%

17.0%

55.1%

2.2%

1.1%

-1.2%

19.7%

2.7%

1.5%

3.6%

3.4%

3.5%

10.0%

18.6%

36.0%

-10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

Ap

pro

ach

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

TFU Cost

DDT&E Cost

-8.3%

-6.9%

-8.5%

-3.6%

-8.7%

-16.3%

-10.4%

5.1%

-16.6%

-18.8%

-14.9%

-45.7%

-8.1%

-5.8%

-7.1%

-16.2%

-21.8%

-13.6%

-8.8%

-14.3%

-14.6%

-21.4%

-16.9%

-46.4%

-6.7%

-6.0%

-7.4%

-17.6%

-20.3%

-13.4%

-9.1%

-11.8%

-14.9%

-13.9%

-10.9%

-41.5%

-50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

App

roac

h

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

Total Cycle Time

Variable Costs per Flight ($M)

Total FAC/GSE (nonannualized) ($M)

Total Cycle Time

Variable Costs per Flight ($M)

Total FAC/GSE (nonannualized) ($M)

Page 13: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 13

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Overview of D4Ops Project

Phase I: Development of D4Ops Approaches

Phase II: D4Ops Approaches in Context

I

II

A

B

C

D

Derivation & Supporting (Contributing) Analyses of Operational Effectiveness (OE) Attributes

New Vehicle System Design Options Definition

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Prioritization Process

Review of Approaches

E

F

G

Context 1: Near Term Orbital Space Plane (OSP)

Context 2: Mid Term Rocket TSTO

Context 3: Far Term TBD

Page 14: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 14

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Use of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to Select D4Ops Approaches

No Relationship [0]

Weak relationship [1]

Medium relationship [3]

Strong Relationship [9]

Legend [numerical value]

OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (OE) ATTRIBUTES[A through H]

CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

OPERATIONAL APPROACHES[1-52]

CU

ST

OM

ER

IMP

OR

TA

NC

E

10

4

9

7

8

10

9

4

A. VEHICLE FLIGHT PRODUCTIVITY MISSION FLEXIBILITY

B. LAUNCH AVAILABILITY/INHERENT RELIABILITY

C. GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (GSE)/FACILITY INTENSITY

D. SUPPORT SERVICES INTENSITY

E. OPS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

F. MATERIALS/LOGISTICS INTENSITY

G. FLIGHT & GROUND

H. SAFETY/IN-FLIGHT RELIABILITY

TECHNICAL PRIORITIES

1. R

educ

e pa

rts

coun

t…

2. P

lace

oxi

dize

r ta

nks

in a

ft…

3. P

lace

bot

h ox

idiz

er A

ND

fuel

tank

s in

aft…

4. U

se e

xter

nal p

aylo

ad c

onta

iner

s,,,

5. In

clud

e se

lf-fe

rry

and

pow

er la

ndin

g,,,

6. C

reat

e sy

mm

etric

al la

yout

,,,

7. In

clud

e im

prov

ed a

cces

s to

veh

icle

are

as,,,

8. F

ly r

etur

n tr

ajec

tory

inve

rted

,,,

9. D

esig

n fo

r no

cen

ter

engi

ne p

lace

men

t,,,

10. R

educ

e nu

mbe

r of

flig

ht e

lem

ents

,,,

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF IMPORTANCEARRIVED AT THROUGH CONSENSUS

Note: Sample data is shown for the above case.

OE WEIGHTINGS(INTEGER SCALE OF 1-10)

Page 15: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 15

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Basis of Selected D4Ops Strategies

Reduce parts count using highly reliable parts (vs. less reliability in the parts and higher need for redundancy as in Shuttle)

Use common fluids and tanks for Main Propulsion System, OMS, RCS, Power and Thermal Management (heat loads, cooling, warming, avionics, and ECLSS)

Use common fluids AND tanks for Main Propulsion System, OMS, RCS and Power

Eliminate external aeroshell and closed compartments, Integrate structural/ aerodynamics systems and safety systems (Haz Gas and Purge, Vent and Drain-PVD) as single system, lean designs resulting in reduced or eliminated fluid systems.

Reduce TPS moldline penetration and repair/replacement (self-healing TPS including self-healing seals)

Uniform, exactly identical and interchangeable TPS parts for high percentages of vehicle surfaces

Simpler, all-electric power and actuation system (use EMAs/EHAs at load and use high storage density batteries in place of fuel cells and APU’s, replace plumbing with wiring)

Incorporate Propulsion-focused IVHM

Eliminate hypergols AND cryogenic ACS propellants in favor of "green" non-cryogenic ACS propellants

Eliminate all hypergols in favor of LOX/LH2 propellant combination for ACS

Reduce engine count (use larger, fewer engines for main/OMS/RCS, i.e. Eliminate need for separate OMS engines by using throttled MPS on-orbit)

Selected Design Approach

Liquid Prop/Power/Thermal Mgmnt

(36.1% Max Contribution)

INTEGRATE ACROSS PROPULSION, PWR & THERMAL MGMNT FUNCTIONS

Unplanned Work Content

(24% Max Contribution)

INCREASE OVERALL SYSTEMS RELIABILITY

Liquid Propulsion/Power Mgmnt

(25.4% Max Contribution)

Liquid Propulsion/Structures, Mechanisms & Veh Handling

(48.2% Max Contribution )

Thermal Management Work Content (10.7% Max Contribution)

Power Management Work Content

(10.9% Max Contribution)

Liquid Propulsion Work Content

(14.5% Max Contribution)

Work Content Potential Reduction Through Use of

D4Ops Strategy(Total RCA Direct Work

Contribution)

INTEGRATE ACROSS PROPULSION & POWER FUNCTIONS

INTEGRATE ACROSS PROPULSION & AIRFRAME

IMPROVE PASSIVE THERMAL MANAGEMENT

INTEGRATE POWER MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

INTEGRATE PROPULSION SYSTEMS

Design4Ops Strategy

Page 16: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 16

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Generic Set of Design Approaches

BaselineState-Of-Practice (SOP)O: SOP

Reduce tank redundancy, reduce engine redundancy, eliminate redundant fuel cells while increasing individual component reliability to maintain overall end-to-end failure rates.

Reduce Overall Parts Count1: Reduce Parts

Use fewer OMS and RCS thrusters (less redundancy), but increase the reliability of the thrusters to maintain current end-to-end failure rates.

Reduce Engine Count2: Reduce Engines

Use all-battery power system. Eliminate fuel cells (note APUs and hydraulic systems already eliminated in SOP baseline)

All Electric (batteries instead of fuel cells and APUs and eliminate hydraulics)

3: All Electric

Use LOX/LH2 ACS thrustersEliminate Hypergolic ACS4: No Hypergols

Use H2O2/Ethanol thrustersEliminate Hypergolic and Cryogenic ACS5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

Use uniform thickness and density TPS tiles of common shape to maximum extent practical. Thickness governed by max thickness location.

Uniform TPS tiles and blankets (shape and thickness)6: Uniform TPS

Reduce TPS weight due to fewer access locations, but increase TPS acreage weights for self-healing sealant and coatings for improved damage tolerance and water resistance.

Reduce TPS Penetrations (Access locations and cutouts) and Repair/Replacement Actions (e.g. Self-healing TPS)

7: Robust TPS

Add Avionics weight for new controllers, sensors, and wiring to support P-IVHMPropulsion-focused IVHM System8: P-IVHM

Reduce structural skin weight by using open trusswork aft of cabin on leeward side. Add additional aeroheating protection to internal tankage and components for entry protection. Combine fill and drain functions.

Eliminate Aeroshell and Closed Compartments. Integrate structural and plumbing functions.

9: Less Aeroshell

Use LOX/LH2 ACS and combined with fuel cell tanks.Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion and Power10: Common Prop./Power

Use N2 pressurant for propulsion (eliminate He) and combine with ECLSS, use LOX/LH2 ACS and combine with fuel cells. (Note ECLSS water tanks already integrated with fuel cells in SOP baseline).

Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion, Power, and ECLSS (thermal)

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

Reduce tank redundancy and tank counts, use common LOX/LH2 fluids for propulsion and ECLSS (for O2). Use N2 for ECLSS and pressurization. Reduce OMS engines and thrusters. Use all batteries rather than fuel cells. Improve TPS robustness/maintenance and eliminate TPS penetrations as practical. Use uniform thickness TPS tiles of common size where practical Add propulsion-focused IVHM. Eliminate leeward skin panel structures aft of crew cabin to eliminate closed spaces. Combine plumbing fill/drain functions. Combine tankage between propulsion and ECLSS.

All Applicable D4Ops Approaches (for OSP context use: 1-4, 6-9, 11). Assume 4 and 11 preclude approach 5. Also assume that approach 11 supercedes approach 10.

12: Roll-Up

Context 1 ImplementationD4Ops ApproachNumber / Short Name

D4Ops Approach Full Name

Page 17: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Root Cause Analysis Database

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 17

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 18: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 18

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Overview of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Project

From a Technical Standpoint…- What drives the timelines? Operations- We must understand the direct operations…system discipline by discipline- Resultant metrics are lbs and people per year to space and number of successful flights between

catastrophic failure

What drives total recurring cost? Infrastructure- We must understand the interactions of the infrastructure functions with the direct operations and the drivers

of infrastructure functions- Resultant metric is ultimately $$ per year to operate the total system

Analysis of the STS design to understand technical drivers, the design root causes of Operations and Infrastructure

Analysis focuses on fundamental design causes of direct work- STS-81 is one of eight typical flows of detailed processing data to be analyzed- 7-8 flight-per-year launch rate (1996-1997)- As-Run Task Durations- Follow-on detailed systems analysis can drive to detailed design causes and technology shortfalls

Source: Vehicle Systems Research and Technology Project, Root Cause Analysis Subproject, NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC), March 24, 2003

Page 19: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 19

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Specifics of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Project

Project initiated under SLI Program 3/2002- Analysis Formulation: Why does it cost so much to operate the Shuttle system? Why Does it Take So Long

to Process the Shuttle?

Release 1 (SLI AWG, Aug 2002) :- An Overview of Shuttle Budget & Infrastructure Functions- STS OPF Turnaround Work Content Analysis

Release 2 (NGLT Quarterly, Mar 2003):- STS Flight Element Assembly, Vehicle Integration & Launch work content analysis with update to

Turnaround work content- Access Database with Cause and Need framework for Engineering comment/review

Primary products- Release 1 CD-ROM- Release 2 (complete set on CD-ROM to be delivered in April 2003 through KSC Systems Engineering

Office):STS Design Root Cause Knowledge Capture System (MS Access Database)Cause Report (Word/*pdf)Summary Data Set (PowerPoint)

Source: Vehicle Systems Research and Technology Project, Root Cause Analysis Subproject, NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC), March 24, 2003

Page 20: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 20

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Overview of RCA Database Sources

Data in RCA DB includes components for STS-81 flight from last time sent into space- If components assembled but not sent into space then not included for that flight

Originates from historical KSC processing data- “CAPSS Analysis Data Query" exported data from RCA Access database file named "STS Root

Cause.mdb" and dated Pre-Release 2 (March 2003)

Ultimate source of data is database from United Space Alliance (USA)- Data exported from ARTEMIS database- STS processing data source (IOS/GPSS) formatted in (*.csv) Excel files- STS-81 actual work content hours loaded into Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Access database - Consists of scheduled data (not real tracking data or shop floor data)- Sources pulled from 7-8 flight-per-year work pace (1997 time frame)- Data initially cleaned and organized into Function Breakouts and Design Disciplines by NASA KSC- Data only for FBS 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 (FBS 2.0 and 5.0 have most complete data)- Source: Carey McCleskey, NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

Portions of RCA DB contain data from STS-79 flights- SRBs for STS-79 moved to STS-81- Work hours related to SRBs preparation and de-stacking for STS-79 included in original data set

Page 21: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 21

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Functional Breakdown System (FBS) Nomenclature

Source: Vehicle Systems Research and Technology Project, Root Cause Analysis Subproject, NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC), March 24, 2003

Insufficient Data

Some Useful Data Available for Analysis

Indicates inclusion in RCA DB

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPS

PLANNING & MGMTCONCEPT-UNIQUE

LOGISTICS

CONNECTING COMMUNITY

INFRASTRUCTURE & SUPPORT SERVICES

OPERATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE

FBS

FLIGHT ELEMENT ASSEMBLY

LAUNCH VEHICLE INTEGRATION

FLIGHT ELEMENT TURNAROUND

LANDING & RECOVERY

LAUNCH

TRAFFIC/FLIGHT CONTROL

OFFLINE PAYLOAD PROCESSING

VEHICLE DEPOT MAINTENANCE

ELEMENT RECEIPT & ACCEPTANCE

SPACEPORT SUPPPORTSERVICES

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

11.0 12.0

13.0

Page 22: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 22

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Overview of Space Shuttle Flight STS-81

Shuttle Atlantis (OV-104) from KSC Pad 39-B (39)

81st Shuttle Mission, 18th Flight OV-104, 5th Mir docking, 16th Night Launch, 34th KSC Landing

Mission- STS-81 was the fifth of nine planned missions to Mir and the second one involving an exchange of U.S.

astronauts- Atlantis carried the SPACEHAB double module providing additional middeck locker space for secondary

experiments.- STS-81 involved the transfer of approximately 5,975 pounds of logistics to and from the Mir, the largest

transfer of items to date. During the docked phase, 1,400 pounds of water, 1,137.7 pounds of U.S. science equipment, 2,206.1 pounds of Russian logistics along with 268.2 pounds of miscellaneous material were transferred to Mir. Returning to Earth aboard Atlantis was 1,256.6 pounds of U.S. science material, 891.8 pounds of Russian logistics and 214.6 pounds of miscellaneous material.

Hardware- SRB: BI-082, SRM: 360T054A(Left),360T054B(Right), ET: ET-83, MLP : MLP-2 - SSME-1: SN-2041 (Block I), SSME-2: SN-2034 (Phase II), SSME-3: SN-2042 (Block I)

Payload- Mir-Docking/5, SpaceHab-DM, SAREX-II, KIDSAT, TVIS, Biorack, CREAM, OSVS, MSX

Source: NASA Kennedy Space Center Science, Technology and Engineering page: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-81/mission-sts-81.html

Page 23: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 23

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

STS-81 Processing Schedule Overview

The SRB set used for the STS-81 flight (BI-082) was the set that was destacked for STS-79 which flew a different set (BI-083)

OPF-3 - 9/26/96, VAB - 12/05/96, PAD - 12/10/96, TCDT - 12/17/96

Launch- January 12, 1997, 4:27:23 a.m. EST. Liftoff occurred on time following smooth countdown.

Landing- January 22, 1997, 9:22:44 a.m. EST, Runway 33, Kennedy Space Center, Fla. Rollout distance: 9,350 feet

(2,850 meters). Rollout time: one minute, nine seconds. Mission duration: 10 days, four hours, 55 minutes, 21 seconds. Landed on revolution 160, on the second KSC opportunity for the day.

Source: NASA Kennedy Space Center Science, Technology and Engineering page: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-81/mission-sts-81.html

Page 24: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 24

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

STS-79 Processing Schedule Overview

STS-79 was previous flight of OV-104 (Atlantis) before STS-81

Flow A: OPF - 4/15/96, VAB - 6/24/96, PAD - 7/01/96

Flow B: (after rollback due to Hurricane Bertha and SRB problem) VAB - 7/10/96, OPF - 8/03/96, VAB - 8/13/96, PAD - 8/20/96, TCDT - 8/27/96

Flow C: (after rollback due to Hurricane Fran) VAB - 9/04/96, PAD - 9/05/96, L-2 - 9/14/96

Launch- Sept. 16, 1996, 4:54:49 a.m. EDT

Landing- Sept. 26, 1996, 8:13:15 a.m. EDT

Source: NASA Kennedy Space Center Science, Technology and Engineering page: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-79/mission-sts-79.html

Page 25: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 25

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

STS-79 Detailed Launch De-Stack

On July 1, 1996, Atlantis was rolled out from the VAB to Pad 39A

On Tuesday, July 8, 1996, Mission managers decided to roll back Atlantis from Pad LC-39A to the VAB due to the projected storm track of Hurricane Bertha

- Earlier in the week a rollback was also being considered in the event repairs will be needed to the Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) following the discovery of hot gas penetration of rubber insulation on the boosters for shuttle flight STS-78.

On Monday, July 15, 1996, NASA managers decided to destack and replace Atlantis' Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) with a new set of boosters

- Technicians disassembling the motors of Space Shuttle mission STS-78 observed that hot gases had seeped into J-joints in the field joints of the motors. An investigation into the seepage identified the most probable cause was the use of a new adhesive and cleaning fluid. These elements were changed in order to comply with new Environmental Protection Agency regulations which reduce ozone depleting substances. The STS-79 booster set included the same adhesive so a new SRB stack built using the older adhesive will be used until the problem can be further analyzed.

On Friday, August 2, 1996, Atlantis was demated from the original set of SRB's and transported to the OPF bay no. 3 at about 2 AM Saturday. STS-79's original SRBs are scheduled to be used on mission STS-81 after they are destacked, cleaned, inspected and restacked.

- On Thursday, August 8, 1996, STS-79's external tank was demated from STS-79's original set of SRBs. A new set of SRB's had already been stacked and destacking of the original SRB was expected to begin on the following Monday.

Source: NASA Kennedy Space Center Science, Technology and Engineering page: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-79/mission-sts-79.html

Page 26: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

STS-81 Launch

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 26

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Source: NASA Kennedy Space Center Science, Technology and Engineering page: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-81/images/images.html

Shuttle Atlantis (OV-104) from KSC Pad 39-B81st Shuttle Mission, 18 th Flight OV-104, 5 th Mir docking, 16 th Night Launch, 34 th KSC Landing OPF-3 - 9/26/96, VAB - 12/05/96, PAD - 12/10/96, Launc h – 01/12/97

Page 27: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

STS-81 Orbit and Landing

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 27

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Source: NASA Kennedy Space Center Science, Technology and Engineering page: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-81/images/images.html

Page 28: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 28

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

OPF Flow Time (Calendar-Days)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

360

999388918986948381797775746971636865626151555452464942484037383132343027

Days

STS-Flow

File: TA Days.xlsTab: OPF (CD's)

Raw Data Source: DRD-1.1.7.c STS Turnaround Workday Comparison Plan

Dec 14, 1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

939589858380777269676859615754474944403531333026

Launch Pad Integrated SSV Flow (Calendar-Days per Flow)

Days

STS-Flow

File: TA Days.xls

Tab: PAD CD's

Raw Data Source: DRD-1.1.7.c STS Turnaround Workday Comparison Plan

Date: Dec 14, 1999

(From Initial Arrival at Launch Pad to Launch)

STS OPF and VAB Processing History

Source: NASA Kennedy Space Center Presentation, “Spaceport Systems Processing Model: Introduction to Space Shuttle Processing, February 4, 2000

Current NASA KSC flight rate analysis models use 80 Calendar Days for OPF Flow

Current NASA KSC flight rate analysis models use 7 Calendar Days for VAB Integrated Flow

Current NASA KSC flight rate analysis models use 28 Calendar Days for Pad Flow Duration

STS-79Flow A- OPF - 4/15/96- VAB - 6/24/96- PAD - 7/01/96Flow B- VAB - 7/10/96- OPF - 8/03/96- VAB - 8/13/96- PAD - 8/20/96Flow C- VAB - 9/04/96- PAD - 9/05/96- L-2 - 9/14/96

STS-81- OPF-3 - 9/26/96- VAB - 12/05/96- PAD - 12/10/96

Page 29: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 29

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Breakdown of Work Content Data in RCA DB

3,8371,6136901,5344.0

9,8376,91402,9235.0

1,115626224676.0

1,999

386

901

0

Number of Content Hours after STS-79 Destack on 07/15/1996 and before

STS-79 Landing

37,134

4,874

23,075

32

Number of Content Hours after STS-79 Landing

7,315

2,391

0

0

Number of Content Hours before STS-79 Destack on

07/15/1996

23,9762.0

7,6513.0

46,448TOTAL

321.0

Total Work Content HoursFBS

By FBS

Source: “CAPSS Analysis Data Query" exported data from RCA Access database file named "STS Root Cause.mdb" and dated Pre-Release 2 (March 2003)

April 4, 1996First Rollout

July 15, 1996SRB Destack

September 26, 1996Landing

Page 30: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 30

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Illustration of Breakdown of Work Content Data in RCA DB

Source: “CAPSS Analysis Data Query" exported data from RCA Access database file named "STS Root Cause.mdb" and dated Pre-Release 2 (March 2003)

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

FB

S

Work Content Hours

Number of Content Hours before STS-79 Destack on07/15/1996

Number of Content Hours after STS-79 Destack on07/15/1996 and before STS-79 Landing on 09/26/96

Number of Content Hours after STS-79 Landing on09/26/96

Page 31: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 31

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Question of Overlapping STS-79 Data with STS-81 Data in RCA DB

Sources- “CAPSS Analysis Data Query" exported data from RCA Access database file named "STS Root

Cause.mdb" and dated Pre-Release 2 (March 2003)- Work Content Matrices, Carey McCleskey, NASA KSC, (April 21 2003)

Turnaround Data_0318036.xls (FBS 2.0), Assembly Data_031903.xls (FBS 3.0)Veh Integ Data_031703.xls (FBS 4.0), Launch Data_031903.xls (FBS 5.0)

RCA database has work items dating from March 7, 1996 to Jan. 30, 1997.- This time period overlaps two Atlantis flights- There are natural questions of cleaning up the data to accurately reflect one flight

Database and initial KSC summary results use data for STS-79, even before STS-79 lift-off on Sept. 26, 1996 (all the way back to March 7, 1996) and used to represent processing results for STS-81

- The amount of content hours after STS-79 de-stack on 07/15/1996 and before STS-79 Landing on 09/26/96 could be used to account for any work on the SRB de-stack once the problem was known. Some of these hours could be legitimately applied to STS-81.

- Such previous data, from March 7, 1996 to Sept. 14, 1997 (two days before STS-79 liftoff), actually accounts for 8,873 hours out of 46,458 (~19%)

- FBS 2.0 work content matrix summary does book-keep these separately, other FBS (3.0, 4.0, and 5.0) work content matrices still add disparate data for STS-79 and STS-81 processing together

- Issue of whether this time actually belongs to STS- 81 or STS-79 since the RCA DB keeps data under the STS-81 account

- Generally the database tracks pieces used in the sp ecific launch in question

Page 32: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 32

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Conclusions from FBS 2.0 (Turnaround) Level 2 Analysis

GSE System is one of the largest drivers for FBS 2.0 Turnaround (over 20% of total hours)- GSE has a small number of Activities that require large amount of work content hours- TPS and STR Systems have less of such a “top-heavy” set of Activities- Of top 6 Activities in FBS 2.0, 4 deal with GSE System purge/filter inspections

Most of top TPS System activities deal with tile processing- 74% of all TPS system hours from two SubFunctions- “TPS Moldline Penetration & Aerosurface Hingeline Seal Servicing” (46% of TPS System hours)- “Repair or Replacement of Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) Hardware” (28% of TPS System hours)

For STR System, window servicing is a large factor- Out of approximately 70 distinct Activities, 10 (~14%) account for over 43.0% of work content hours (and all

these hours originate from activities associated with window servicing)- 826 out of a total of 1,878 STR System hours (43.0%) deal with window servicing- Specifically Activity Descriptions (ADs) dealing with “WINDOW 5,6,7,8 R/R” and “ORB WINDOW POLISH”

Page 33: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Context 1

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 33

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 34: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Design Summary

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 34

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 35: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 35

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Top-Level Assumptions

Use of SEI developed methods and tools for design- Consultation of previous NASA JSC reference OSP work- Use of standard Weight Breakdown Structure (WBS)- Less reliance on heavy avionics sizing as performed in NASA JSC OSP reference work

Goal is to compare but not replicate previous analy ses- Use similar type near-term architecture to examine the impact of various operational approaches

Expert-defined parameter changes to model inputs (k-factors) reflect the impact of any design approach

Scope of activity did not include analysis of Evolv ed Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) booster and/or i ntegration issues

Initial development consisted of Outer Mold Line (OML) development in CAD and subsystem packaging

End-to-end subsystem failure rates stayed the same whenever parts were being reduced- Assumed additional weight and cost complexity generated in order to maintain the current end-to-end failure rate

Concerned about comparisons of design approaches with State-of-Practice (SOP) design- Initial development of a baseline Context 1 design

When cost complexity changed, generally both DDT&E and TFU costs affected

Weights, Cost, and Safety, and Economics disciplines coupled in a spreadsheet-based meta model known as a ROSETTA models

Use of AATe version 1.0c for this analysis

Simple Life-Cycle Cost Model developed- Assumed static flight rates- Assumed minimum number of 2 vehicles acquired in program- IOC: 2009, Program End: 2025, DDT&E of 3 years starting in 2004, Vehicle production of 2 years starting in 2007, Facilities development of 4 years starting in

2004- Expendable booster costs not included in Life Cycle Cost estimates

Page 36: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 36

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Schematic of D4Ops Project Approach

Brainstorm Design Options Set

Initial Set: Veh SysDesign Options

RankOptions to Develop

~12 D4Ops ApproachesFinal Set: D4Ops Approaches

Contributing Attributes (CA)

System Design Options

RCA Database

Operatio nal Appr oach

Reduce parts count using highly

reliable parts (vs. less reliability in

the parts and higher need for

redundancy as in

Shuttle).

Place oxidizer tanks in aft

vehicle location to minimize fill

pumping

requirements

P lace both oxidizer AN D fuel

tanks in aft vehicle location

(toriod solution) to reduce feedlines and standardize

fill/drain locations

Use external payload

container s to allow off- line

payload

integration

Include self-ferry

and power landing to reduce delays associated w ith

non-K SC landing

C reate

symmetrical layout of main

engines (spaced

for maintainability)

Reduce part s coun t using high ly reli able part s ( vs. less rel iabilit y in the par ts and higher need fo r r ed undancy as

in S huttl e) . x Pl ace o xidizer tanks in aft v eh icle location to mi nimize fi ll pum ping r equirem en ts x Pl ace b oth oxi dizer AND f uel tanks in af t vehicle

locati on (t oriod sol ution) to r educe feedli nes and standard ize fill /drain locations x Use external payload contai ners to allo w off -line pay load

int eg ration x In cl ude sel f-f err y and power landing to redu ce d el ays associat ed with non -KSC l an ding x Create symmet rical layo ut of m ain engines (spaced for

maint ainabilit y) x

Vehicle System DesignCompatibility

Operational Effectiveness Attributes with weightings

Singly and in combination,12 approach combinations

Baseline Context 1: Orbital Space Plane (OSP)

Derivation & Supporting (Contributing) Analyses of Operational Effectiveness (OE) Attributes

New Vehicle System Design Options Definition

Baseline Context

Goal / DRM

Without new ops approaches

New Ops Contexts

With new ops approaches12 variants = 12 combinations

Pareto Ranking of New Ops Approaches to Baseline

Baseline + 12 D4Ops approach combinations

5,000, 000

5,250, 000

5,500, 000

5,750, 000

6,000, 000

6,250, 000

No

Te

ch

Tech

A

Tech

B

Te

ch C

Te

ch D

Tech

E

Tech

B+

C

Tech

B+

D

Te

ch C

+D

Tech

C+E

Tech

D+E

Te

ch C

+D

+E

Gro

ss W

eig

ht [l

bm]

Pro bab ilis tic @ 8 0% Con fiden ceDet erministic

Te chnology Port fo lio

Figures of Merit (FOMs)

FOM Weightings

Note: Similar process for other contexts (Mid-term-Context 2 and Far-term-Context 3)

Provided by NASA KSC

Legend

Supporting Filters andData Mining

STS BudgetdB

Development of OE Attributes

(~10)

Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

Veh icle

Conf ig uratio nVehicle

Conf ig uratio nVehicle

Conf ig uratio n

CA No. Contributi ng Analys is (CA) [ Des ign Discipline fr om RCA Database] Weighti ng

Reduce parts count us ing

highly r el iable

parts (vs. less rel iabi l ity in the

parts and higher need for

redundancy as in Shuttle).

Place oxidizer tanks in aft

vehicle location to minimize fi ll

pumping requirements

P lace both ox idizer A ND fuel

tanks in aft

vehicle location (toriod solution)

to reduce feedlines and

standardize fil l /drain locations

1 2 3

A TUNNE L AD APTER/EC L LINE MOD 0 0 0 0B F/M/A CLEAN ING 0 0 0 0C OME TRICKLE PU RGE MO NITORIN G (O MS) 0 0 0 0D RCS THR USTER D ESICC ANT INSPEC TION (O MS ) 0 0 0 0E TOTAL CO MPR ESSED A IR OUTA GE TO R &R PIPE (E.G .&G. O UTAG E) 0 0 0 0F COM,ECL,EPD ,IN S,MEQ ,OE L PR OCE SSING/H ISTORIC AL P WR DO WN PR OCES SING 0 0 0 0G MO NITOR ORBITER PURG E AIR (PVD ) 0 0 0 0H WINDO W R/R 0 0 0 0I ORB W IN DO W POLISH 0 0 0 0J TILE PR OCE SSING : TPS Moldl ine Penetration & Aer osurface Hingel ine Seal Serv ic ing, Repair or Replacement of Thermal Protection Sys tems (TPS) Hardware0 0 0 0K TPS POS T FLT INSPE CTION 0 0 0 0

Given:Design for Ops Methods

NASA JSC Initial OSP

Roll-up Ops Context

From 12 approaches, all

viable approaches in combination

Page 37: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 37

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Sample Design Structure Matrix (DSM) of Context Assessment Process

Feed Forward LinksA: Wing Exposed Planform Area [ft2]

Total Exposed Wingspan (less fuselage width)Total Tail Planform Area [ft2]Nose Structural Surface Area [ft2]Midbody Surface Area (less cabin) [ft2]Base Area [ft2]ACC Leading Edges Length (total)AETB-8 Wetted Area [ft2]AFRSI Wetted Area [ft2]

B: Total Vehicle Length [ft]Total Vehicle Height-w/o landing gear down [ft]Total Vehicle Width [ft]Total Vehicle Wetted Area [ft2]

C: Total Vehicle Length [ft]Total Vehicle Height-w/o landing gear down [ft]Total Vehicle Width [ft]

D: Dry Weights [lbs] from 14 categoriesE: Total Propellant Weight [lbs]

Total Number of OMS EnginesF: Total Development Cost [$B]G: DDT&E Cost [$B]

TFU Cost [$B]H: Vehicle ReliabilityI: Recurring Operations Cost per Year [$M]

Recurring Operations Cost per Flight [$M/Flight]GSE Operations Cost [$M]Turnaround Time [days]Vehicle Reliability

A CB

D E

F

H

G

I

Safety[GTSafety-II]

Weights and Sizing[MERs]

Cost[NAFCOM 99]

DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

CAD[Solid Edge]

Operations[AATe]

Economics[CABAM_A]

Page 38: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Vehicle Summary

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 38

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 39: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 39

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice) (1)

External View Internal Packaging View

Page 40: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 40

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice) (2)

Top View View on Delta-V Heavy EELV Booster

Page 41: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 41

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1 Scale Comparison

JSC OSP Baseline42.6 Klbs

44 ft.----

41 ft.

0 feet

100 feet

200 feet

VARIANT TYPEDRY WEIGHT

LengthHeight (w/o wheels down)

Width

SEI D4Ops Context 1 SOP39.2 Klbs46.03 ft.9.24 ft.

28.23 ft.

0 meters

30.48 meters

60.96 meters

STS (Orbiter)173 Klbs184.2 ft.76.6 ft.78.1 ft.

Apollo CM, SM, and LM12.2 Klbs

10.9 ft. (CM)12.8 ft. (CM)12.8 ft. (CM)

Delta IV-Heavy185 Klbs

236 ft.49 ft.16 ft.

Page 42: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 42

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 1 Comparison of NASA JSC OSP Baseline with SEI State-of-Practice (SOP)

Dry Weight

Insertion Weight (without Crew Escape System)

NASA JSC Baseline

Weight [lbs]

42,644

46,643

Item

39,218

48,016

SEI Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice)

Weight [lbs]

NASA JSC analysis assumed 27,000 lb entry weight for vehicle with insertion weight (i.e. release from booster and discard of Crew Escape System or CES) equal to that plus 3,999 lb of assumed propellant, therefore, actual NASA JSC insertion weight (from the WBS) is more, therefore NASA JSC OSP baseline is too low on NTO/MMH propellant for desired missionSEI estimates for Power and Electrical Conversion and Distribution (ECD) are generally lower than the JSC reference

45,948

53,202

SEI Design Approach 12 (Roll-up)

Weight [lbs]

Page 43: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 43

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 1 Three View: Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice)

Page 44: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 44

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 1: D4Ops Design Approaches to Be Added

1. Reduce Overall Parts Count

2. Reduce Engine Count

3. All Electric (batteries instead of fuel cells and APUs and eliminate hydraulics)

4. Eliminate Hypergolic ACS

5. Eliminate Hypergolic and Cryogenic ACS

6. Uniform TPS tiles and blankets (shape and thickness)

7. Reduce TPS Penetrations (Access locations and cutouts) and Repair/Replacement Actions (e.g. Self-healing TPS)

8. Propulsion-focused IVHM System9. Eliminate Aeroshell and Closed Compartments. Integrate structural and plumbing functions.

10. Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion and Power

11. Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion, Power, and ECLSS (thermal)

D4Ops approaches (No. 1-11) to be applied to baseline OSP in key functions/subsystems areas as shown

BASELINE OSP

Page 45: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 45

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Design Approach 12 (Roll-up)

External View Internal Packaging View

OMS Engine (x1)

OMS Propellant Tank: LOX

Aft RCS Thrusters (x8)

Nose RCS Thrusters (x8)

Docking System/Hatch

Parachute Recovery System

OMS Propellant Tank: LH2

Batteries (x4)

Page 46: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 46

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 1 Three View: Design Approach 12 (Roll-Up)

Note: Emergency Escape Rocket and Adapter Not Shown

Page 47: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 47

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 1 Tank/Propulsion Comparison: State-of-Practice (SOP) versus Approach Rollup

NTO NTO MMH MMH

GHE GHE

LOX LOX LH2 LH2

H2O H2O GN2 GN2 GN2 GN2

Design Approach 0: State-of-Practice (SOP)

GN2 LOX LH2 H2O

Design Approach 12: Roll-up

SCORECARD

Number of Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GN2)

Number of LH2 Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of LOX Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of H20 Tanks

Number of GN2 Tanks for Cabin Gas

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

16

14

24

6

SCORECARD

Number of Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GN2)

Number of LH2 Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of LOX Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of H20 Tanks

Number of GN2 Tanks for Cabin Gas

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

4

8

8

1

Page 48: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 48

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Design Approach Comparison-SOP versus Approach 12 (Roll-up)

BEFORE D4Ops: Context 1 Baseline

BEFORE D4Ops: Context 1 Baseline

SCORECARD

Number of Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GN2)

Number of LH2 Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of LOX Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of H20 Tanks

Number of GN2 Tanks for Cabin Gas

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

16

14

24

6

SCORECARD

Number of Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GN2)

Number of LH2 Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of LOX Tanks: Fuel Cells

Number of H20 Tanks

Number of GN2 Tanks for Cabin Gas

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

4

8

8

1

AFTER D4Ops: Context 1 With 11 Approaches

AFTER D4Ops: Context 1 With 11 Approaches

Page 49: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Analysis of Design Approaches

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 49

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 50: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 50

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Weight Metric Comparison to SOP

-1.2%

0.0%

0.1%

8.7%

-0.4%

5.2%

0.7%

1.5%

2.5%

5.1%

9.3%

17.2%

-1.1%

0.0%

-0.8%

3.7%

-0.5%

4.8%

0.6%

1.4%

2.3%

1.5%

5.2%

10.3%

-5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

App

roac

h

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

Gross Liftoff Weight (with CES)

Dry Weight

Page 51: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 51

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Non-Recurring Cost Metric Comparison to SOP

6.6%

2.6%

-0.3%

14.0%

2.0%

0.9%

5.7%

6.2%

10.3%

8.4%

17.0%

55.1%

2.2%

1.1%

-1.2%

19.7%

2.7%

1.5%

3.6%

3.4%

3.5%

10.0%

18.6%

36.0%

-10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

App

roac

h

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

TFU Cost

DDT&E Cost

Page 52: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 52

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Operations Metric Comparison to SOP

-8.3%

-6.9%

-8.5%

-3.6%

-8.7%

-16.3%

-10.4%

5.1%

-16.6%

-18.8%

-14.9%

-45.7%

-8.1%

-5.8%

-7.1%

-16.2%

-21.8%

-13.6%

-8.8%

-14.3%

-14.6%

-21.4%

-16.9%

-46.4%

-6.7%

-6.0%

-7.4%

-17.6%

-20.3%

-13.4%

-9.1%

-11.8%

-14.9%

-13.9%

-10.9%

-41.5%

-50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

App

roac

h

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

Total Cycle Time

Variable Costs per Flight ($M)

Total FAC/GSE (nonannualized) ($M)

All Approaches Combined Have the Greatest Impact Upon Operations Metrics

All Approaches Combined Have the Greatest Impact Upon Operations Metrics

Page 53: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 53

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Life Cycle Cost Comparison

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

O: S

OP

1: R

educ

e P

arts

2: R

educ

e E

ngin

es

3: A

ll E

lect

ric

4: N

o H

yper

gols

5: N

o H

yper

gols

/Cry

ogen

s

6: U

nifo

rm T

PS

7: R

obus

t TP

S

8: P

-IV

HM

9: L

ess

Aer

oshe

ll

10: C

omm

on P

rop.

/Pow

er

11: C

omm

onP

rop.

/Pow

er/E

CLS

S

12: R

oll-U

p

Design Approach

DD

T&

E a

nd T

FU

Cos

t [F

Y20

03$M

]

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

LCC

/Flig

ht [F

Y20

03$M

/Flig

ht]

DDT&E Cost

TFU Cost

Cost Per Flight [$M/Flight] at 4 Flights/Year

Cost Per Flight [$M/Flight] at 16 Flights/Year

Page 54: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 54

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1 State-of-Practice (SOP): Initial Program Cost

Cost includes DDT&E, acquisition of 4 flight articl es, 2 non-flying test beds, facilities development, operations (at $1.23B/year), and EELV launch (at $375M/launch but not including EELV crew-rating qualification cost)

Cumulative Total Costs (w/expendable boosters)

Expendable Booster Costs

Operations Costs

Acquisition Costs: Airframe

Non-Recurring Costs

Total Cumulative Life Cycle Cost Up to Fifth Year o f Flight =

$23.6B [FY2003]

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Program Year

Cos

t [$M

, FY

2003

]

Initial Operating Capability (IOC)@ 6 Flights Per Year

Page 55: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 55

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Cumulative Life Cycle Cost Comparison to SOP (State-of-Practice)

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Program Year

% D

iffer

ence

In C

umul

ativ

e Li

fe C

ycle

Cos

t (LC

C)

Fr

om S

tate

-of-

Pra

ctic

e (S

OP

)

CROSSING HORIZONTAL AXIS INDICATES POINT AT WHICH L CC BECOMES LESS THAN LCC OF STATE-OF-PRACTICE (SOP) CA SE

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Design Approach

DISTANCE FROM HORIZONTAL AXIS INDICATES HOW MUCH LOWER OR HIGHER LCC IS VERSUS LCC OF STATE-OF-PRACTICE (SOP) CASE

Initial Operating Capability (IOC), 16 Flights Per Year

Facility Development

DDT&E Acq.

AS THE LIFE CYCLE PROGRESSES, HIGHER INITIAL FIXED COSTS (DDT&E, ACQUISITION) ARE MORE THAN OFFSET BY REDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS (FACI LITIES AND RECURRING)

AS THE LIFE CYCLE PROGRESSES, HIGHER INITIAL FIXED COSTS (DDT&E, ACQUISITION) ARE MORE THAN OFFSET BY REDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS (FACI LITIES AND RECURRING)

Page 56: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 56

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 1: Ranking of Design Approaches

Life Cycle Costs

Cycle Time

Weight

Even across 9 FOMS

Orientation of Weighting Scenarios For Figures of Merit (FOMs)

10

Median of Rank Across 10 different

Weighting Scenarios

=

NOTE: LARGER OEC SCORE IS BETTER

Overall Evaluation Criterion (OEC): Relative Closeness to Ideal Solution, Based upon multiple metrics which are aggregated and ranked using decision making methods such as TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) for a particular weighting scenario

0.434

0.434

0.458

0.388

0.540

0.510

0.445

0.418

0.491

0.523

0.409

0.582

0.854

0.827

0.838

0.488

0.875

0.594

0.814

0.773

0.740

0.673

0.430

0.163

0.039

0.034

0.055

0.327

0.404

0.212

0.093

0.166

0.252

0.227

0.140

0.965

0.079

0.061

0.103

0.178

0.545

0.315

0.095

0.203

0.279

0.515

0.260

0.937

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

Ap

pro

ach

10

12

8

11

2

4

6

7

5

3

9

1

The Rank Indicates the Importance of theApproach Towards Meeting the Goals

The Rank Indicates the Importance of theApproach Towards Meeting the Goals

Page 57: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 57

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Summary

With ops cost / turn-time improvements the fleet si ze acquired might be reduced for any given flight r ate (a major cost in LCC)

The OSP as a presumed architecture and by consideri ng here only one element of a broader architecture, likely limits the improvements that would be gained vs. an end-to-end system design incorporating the D4Ops approaches. This will be studied further in Context 3.

Approach 12 (Roll-up) is the best across all weighting scenarios- In terms of Life Cycle Costs (LCC), Cycle Time, Loss of Vehicle (LOV) Reliability, GSE cost, variable cost per flight, total number of tanks- Worst amongst all approaches when considering lowest weight or lowest DDT&E cost

Approach 5 (No Hypergols/Cryogens) is second best across all weighting scenarios- Very positive when looking at considering lowest weight (from slight increase in ISP and increase in propellant densities)- Second best when comparing Life Cycle Costs (LCC) or Cycle Time

Approach 10 (Common/Fluids/Tanks for Power/Propulsion) is third best across all weighting scenarios- Not as good in terms of lowest cycle time as Approach 12 (Roll-up)- Very positive when looking at considering lowest weight- Approach 11 (that also integrates ECLSS) has higher costs, weights than Approach 10

Just reducing parts counts or number of engines may be necessary but not sufficient for best approach- Beneficial mainly by reducing weight- Reduction of items is important but so is what is being reduced or replaced- Uniform TPS or uniform fluid types were beneficial to metrics- Robust TPS not as much weight increase as compared to other approaches

Generally, specific integration of parts (i.e tanks) with easier to handle fluids embedded in the best approaches

As the life cycle progresses, higher initial fixed costs (DDT&E, acquisition) are more than offset by r educed operational costs (facilities and recurring) to reduce total Life Cyc le Cost (LCC)

Further refinement of modeling process can be developed- More refined justification for certain k-factor effects

Page 58: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Context 2

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 58

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 59: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Design Summary

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 59

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 60: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 60

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Top-Level Assumptions

Use of SEI developed methods and tools for design- Consultation of current NASA NGLT Architecture 1 TSTO work- Use of standard Weight Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Goal is to compare but not replicate previous analy ses- Use similar type mid-term architecture to examine the impact of various operational approaches

Expert-defined parameter changes to model inputs (k-factors) reflect the impact of any design approach

Scope of activity did not include analysis of alter native main propellants for Booster stage or Orbite r stage

Initial development consisted of Outer Mold Line (OML) development in CAD and subsystem packaging

End-to-end subsystem failure rates stayed the same whenever parts were reduced- Assumed additional weight and cost complexity generated in order to maintain the current end-to-end failure rate

Concerned about comparisons of design approaches with State-of-Practice (SOP) design- Initial development of a baseline Context 2 design

When cost complexity changed, generally both DDT&E and TFU costs affected

Weights, Cost, and Safety, and Economics disciplines coupled in a spreadsheet-based meta model known as a ROSETTA models

Use of AATe version 1.0d for this analysis

Simple Life-Cycle Cost Model developed- Booster/orbiter rocket engine is new development, mostly sunk DDT&E for booster fly back engines- Assumed static flight rates of 5 flights per year- Assumed minimum number of 3 vehicles (orbiter and booster) acquired in program- IOC: 2015, Program End: 2035, DDT&E of 4 years starting in 2009, Vehicle production of 3 years starting in 2012, Facilities development of 5 years starting in

2010- Additional vehicles purchased due to LOV probability- DDT&E cost includes system test hardware (STH), STH is 130% of flight unit, 30% contingency, 10% fee, 20% program support

Page 61: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 61

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Plan for Context 2

E Context 2: Mid Term Two Stage To Orbit (TSTO)

Final Set: D4Ops Approaches (1-11)

Operatio nal Appr oach

Reduce parts count us ing highly

rel iable parts (vs. less rel iabil i ty in

the parts and higher need for

redundancy as in

Shuttle).

Place ox idizer tanks in aft

vehic le location to minimize fi ll

pumping

requirements

P lace both ox idizer AN D fuel

tanks in aft vehic le location

(toriod solution) to reduce feedl ines and s tandardize

fi l l/drain locations

Use external pay load

container s to al low off- line

pay load

integration

Include self-ferry

and power landing to reduce delays assoc iated w ith

non-K SC landing

C reate

symmetrical layout of main

engines (spaced

for maintainabi l i ty)

Reduce part s coun t using high ly reli able part s ( vs. less rel iabilit y in the par ts and higher need fo r r ed undancy as

in S huttl e) . x Pl ace o xidizer tanks in aft v eh icle location to mi nimize fi ll pum ping r equirem en ts x Pl ace b oth oxi dizer AND fuel tanks in af t vehicle

locati on (t oriod sol ution) to r educe feedli nes and standard ize fill /drain locations x Use external payload contai ners to allo w off -line pay load

int eg ration x In cl ude sel f-f err y and power landing to redu ce d el ays associat ed with non -KSC l an ding x Create symmet rical layo ut of m ain engines (spaced for

maint ainabilit y) x

Vehicle System DesignCompatibility

State-of-Practice

Goal / DRM

Ranking of New Ops Approaches

5,0 0 0, 00 0

5,2 5 0, 00 0

5,5 0 0, 00 0

5,7 5 0, 00 0

6,0 0 0, 00 0

6,2 5 0, 00 0

No

Te

ch

Tech

A

Tech

B

Te

ch C

Te

ch D

Tech

E

Tech

B+

C

Tech

B+

D

Te

ch C

+D

Tech

C+E

Tech

D+E

Te

ch C

+D

+E

Gro

ss W

eig

ht [l

bm]

Pro bab ilis tic @ 8 0% Con fiden ceDet erministic

Te chnology Port fo lio

Figures of Merit (FOMs)

FOM Weightings

New Ops Contexts

NASA NGLTArchitecture 1

Roll-up Ops Context

Without new ops approaches With new ops approaches10 variants = 10 combinations

From 10 approaches, all

viable approaches in combination (approach 12)

Page 62: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 62

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Design Structure Matrix (DSM) for TSTO Context Analysis

Feed Forward LinksA: External Geometry of “as-drawn” vehicle elementsB: External Geometry of “as-drawn” vehicle elementsC: Tables of longitudinal aerodynamic coefficientsD: Booster Mass Ratio (guess)

Orbiter Mass Ratio (guess)E: Booster Gross Weight [lbs]

Orbiter Gross Weight [lbs]Booster Total Vacuum Thrust [lbs]Orbiter Total Vacuum Thrust [lbs]Booster Total Engine Exit Area [ft2]Orbiter Total Engine Exit Area [ft2]Booster Sref [ft2]Orbiter Sref [ft2]

F: Booster Gross Weight [lbs]Orbiter Gross Weight [lbs]Booster Total Propellant Consumed [lbs]Orbiter Total Propellant Consumed [lbs]

Feedback LinksG: Calculated Booster Mass Ratio

Calculated Orbiter Mass Ratio

C

Converger(DOT)

Weights andSizing

(MERs)

Trajectory[POST]

MR ScriptDISCIPLINE[Tool Name]

E

G

D

ACAD

[Solid Edge]

Aerodynamics[APAS]

B

F

Page 63: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 63

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Vehicle Closure Process in ModelCenter© Collaborative Design Environment

Page 64: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Vehicle Summary

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 64

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 65: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 65

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2: Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice)Booster Geometry and Packaging

External View Internal Packaging View

Page 66: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 66

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2: Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice)Orbiter Geometry and Packaging

External View Internal Packaging View

Page 67: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 67

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Three View: Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice)Booster

4,290,683 lbsGross Weight

472,856 lbsDry Weight

7Main Engine Count

RS-84Main Engine Type

Design Specifications

Page 68: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 68

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Three View: Design Approach 0 (State-of-Practice)Orbiter

984,643 lbsGross Weight

184,737 lbsDry Weight

4Main Engine Count

RLXMain Engine Type

Design Specifications

Page 69: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 69

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2: Design Approach 12 (Roll-up)Geometry and Packaging

Booster Stage Orbiter Stage

Page 70: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 70

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Three View: Design Approach 12 (Roll-up)Booster

4,226,200 lbsGross Weight

466,199 lbsDry Weight

5Main Engine Count

RS-84Main Engine Type

Design Specifications

Page 71: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 71

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Three View: Design Approach 12 (Roll-up)Orbiter

968,743 lbsGross Weight

183,309 lbsDry Weight

3Main Engine Count

RLXMain Engine Type

Design Specifications

Page 72: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 72

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2 Scale Comparison

0 feet

100 feet

200 feet

VARIANT TYPEDRY WEIGHT

LengthHeight (w/o wheels down)

Width

SEI D4Ops Context 2 SOP658 Klbs

164 ft.45 ft.104 ft.

0 meters

30.48 meters

60.96 meters

STS (orbiter)173 Klbs184.2 ft.76.6 ft.78.1 ft.

Delta IV-Heavy185 Klbs

236 ft.49 ft.16 ft.

Page 73: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 73

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Tank/Propulsion Comparison: State-of-Practice (SOP) versus Approach RollupBooster Stage

LOX RP-1 LOX C2H6O

GHe GHe

LOX C2H6O JP-8 JP-8

GHe GHe GHe GHe GHe GHe

Design Approach 0: State-of-Practice (SOP)

LOX RP-1 LOX C2H6O

Design Approach 12: Roll-up

SCORECARD

Number of Main Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Main Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GHe)

Number of JP-8 Tanks: Flyback

Number of Coolant Tanks (Freon)

Number of RCS Oxidizer Tanks

Number of RCS Fuel Tanks

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Main Engines (RS-84)

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

1

1

8

2

2

2

2

18

7

14

12

0

SCORECARD

Number of Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GN2)

Number of JP-8 Tanks: Flyback

Number of Coolant Tanks (H2O)

Number of RCS Oxidizer Tanks

Number of RCS Fuel Tanks

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Main Engines (RS-84)

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

10

5

8

8

0

Freon Freon

GHe GHe

GHe GHe JP-8 H2O

Page 74: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 74

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Tank/Propulsion Comparison: State-of-Practice (SOP) versus Approach RollupOrbiter Stage

LOX LH2 LOX C2H6O

GHe GHe

LOX C2H6O GHe GHe

GHe GHe GHe GHe LOX LH2

Design Approach 0: State-of-Practice (SOP)

LOX LH2

Design Approach 12: Roll-up

SCORECARD

Number of Main Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Main Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GHe)

Number of Freon Tanks: Equipment Cooling

Number of RCS Oxidizer Tanks

Number of RCS Fuel Tanks

Number of Fuel Cell LOX Tanks

Number of Fuel Cell LH2 Tanks

Number of Turboalternator Reactant Tanks

Number of Water Tanks

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

Number of Main Engines

1

1

8

2

2

2

3

3

2

1

25

14

12

2

4

LOX LH2 LOX LH2 Freon Freon H2O GH2

GO2

SCORECARD

Number of Main Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Main Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GHe)

Number of Freon Tanks: Equipment Cooling

Number of RCS Oxidizer Tanks

Number of RCS Fuel Tanks

Number of Fuel Cell LOX Tanks

Number of Fuel Cell LH2 Tanks

Number of Turboalternator Reactant Tanks

Number of Water Tanks

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

Number of Main Engines

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

8

8

0

3

H2O

Page 75: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 75

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Booster Stage: D4Ops Design Approaches to Be Added

1. Reduce Overall Parts Count

2. Reduce Engine Count

5. Eliminate Cryogenic ACS

6. Uniform TPS tiles and blankets (shape and thickness)

7. Reduce TPS Penetrations (Access locations and cutouts) and Repair/Replacement Actions (e.g. Self-healing TPS)

8. Advanced P-IVHM System9. Eliminate Aeroshell and Closed Compartments. Integrate structural and plumbing functions.

10. Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion and Power

11. Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion, Power, and ECLSS (thermal)

D4Ops approaches to be applied to baseline TSTO in key functions/subsystems areas as shown

BASELINE TSTOBOOSTER

Page 76: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 76

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Context 2 Orbiter Stage: D4Ops Design Approaches to Be Added

1. Reduce Overall Parts Count

2. Reduce Engine Count

3. All Electric (batteries instead of fuel cells and APUs)

5. Eliminate Cryogenic ACS

6. Uniform TPS tiles and blankets (shape and thickness)

7. Reduce TPS Penetrations (Access locations and cutouts) and Repair/Replacement Actions (e.g. Self-healing TPS)

8. Advanced P-IVHM System 9. Eliminate Aeroshell and Closed Compartments. Integrate structural and plumbing functions.

10. Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion and Power

11. Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion, Power, and ECLSS (thermal)

D4Ops approaches to be applied to baseline TSTO in key functions/subsystems areas as shown

BASELINE TSTOORBITER

Page 77: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Analysis of Design Approaches

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 77

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 78: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 78

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2: Weight Metric Comparison to SOP

-4.35%

-2.58%

-1.65%

0.00%

0.02%

26.46%

5.03%

1.10%

-4.52%

1.66%

1.30%

21.29%

-4.15%

-2.39%

-1.64%

0.00%

0.02%

24.83%

4.73%

1.00%

-4.13%

1.27%

0.94%

19.32%

-10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

App

roac

h

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

Gross Liftoff Weight

Dry Weight

Page 79: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 79

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2: Non-Recurring Cost Metric Comparison to SOP

-0.2%

-1.1%

-1.4%

0.0%

2.0%

13.1%

11.6%

5.2%

4.4%

3.6%

5.7%

65.1%

-7.3%

-5.4%

-1.5%

0.0%

2.2%

15.4%

8.1%

1.7%

-1.7%

2.0%

3.2%

24.3%

-20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

App

roac

h

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

Vehicle Acquisition Cost

DDT&E Cost

Page 80: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 80

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2: Operations Metric Comparison to SOP

-5.9%

-1.4%

-2.8%

0.0%

1.6%

8.2%

-8.5%

-17.0%

-17.0%

-16.1%

-2.1%

-33.3%

-10.8%

-3.4%

-5.8%

0.0%

3.3%

-2.7%

-8.0%

-16.8%

-13.3%

-26.2%

-25.6%

-38.9%

-7.6%

-4.9%

-8.1%

0.0%

4.7%

-4.7%

-10.3%

-16.2%

-17.1%

-21.1%

-10.3%

-30.1%

-50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0%

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

App

roac

h

% Difference from State of Practice (SOP)

Total Cycle Time (days)

Variable Costs per Flight ($M)

Total FAC/GSE (nonannualized) ($M)

Page 81: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 81

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2 State-of-Practice (SOP): Initial Program Cost

Cost includes DDT&E, acquisition of 3 flight articl es (booster and orbiter), facilities development, and operations (at $2.19B/year)

Operations Costs

Acquisition Costs

Non-Recurring Costs

Total Cumulative Life Cycle Cost Up to Fifth Year of Flight =

$76.4B [FY2003]Initial Operating Capability (IOC)@ 5 Flights Per Year

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Program Year

Co

st [

$M, F

Y20

03]

Page 82: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 82

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

AS THE LIFE CYCLE PROGRESSES, HIGHER INITIAL FIXED COSTS (DDT&E, ACQUISITION) ARE MORE THAN OFFSET BY REDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS (FACI LITIES AND RECURRING)

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

Program Year

% D

iffer

ence

In C

umul

ativ

e Li

fe C

ycle

Cos

t (LC

C)

Fr

om S

tate

-of-

Pra

ctic

e (S

OP

)

D4Ops Context 2: Cumulative Life Cycle Cost Comparison to SOP

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Design Approach

DISTANCE FROM HORIZONTAL AXIS INDICATES HOW MUCH LOWER OR HIGHER LCC IS VERSUS LCC OF STATE-OF-PRACTICE (SOP) CASE

CROSSING HORIZONTAL AXIS INDICATES POINT AT WHICH L CC BECOMES LESS THAN LCC OF STATE-OF-PRACTICE (SOP) CA SE

Initial Operating Capability (IOC), 5 Flights Per Y ear

Facility Development

DDT&E Acq.

Page 83: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 83

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 2: TOPSIS Ranking of Design Approaches

Life Cycle Costs

Cycle Time

Weight

Even across 9 FOMS

Orientation of Weighting Scenarios For Figures of Merit (FOMs)

10

Median of Rank Across 10 different

Weighting Scenarios

=

NOTE: LARGER OEC SCORE IS BETTER

0.623

0.566

0.582

0.522

0.489

0.369

0.537

0.685

0.689

0.753

0.634

0.501

0.946

0.911

0.892

0.840

0.836

0.053

0.689

0.817

0.959

0.805

0.813

0.194

0.355

0.279

0.369

0.141

0.042

0.270

0.430

0.600

0.626

0.742

0.430

0.955

0.743

0.538

0.579

0.394

0.281

0.061

0.294

0.720

0.673

0.964

0.906

0.353

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

1: Reduce Parts

2: Reduce Engines

3: All Electric

4: No Hypergols

5: No Hypergols/Cryogens

6: Uniform TPS

7: Robust TPS

8: P-IVHM

9: Less Aeroshell

10: Common Prop./Power

11: Common Prop./Power/ECLSS

12: Roll-Up

Des

ign

Ap

pro

ach

OEC Score: Relative Closeness to Ideal Solution, , Based upon multiple metrics which are aggregated and ranked using decision making methods such as TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) for a particular weighting scenario

4

7

6

9

11

12

8

3

2

1

5

10

Page 84: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 84

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Summary

Context 2 TSTO required a more refined performance closure process, resulting in re-flown/re-sized veh icle for each approach

It was initially assumed that Approach 12 (Roll-up) would fare well, however due to high costs and wei ght, operational benefits (including lowest cycle time amongst all approaches ) were overshadowed

Approach 10 (Common/Fluids/Tanks for Power/Propulsion) is the best when considering all weighting scenarios- The best in terms of Life Cycle Costs (LCC) and Even Weighting

Approach 9 (Less Aeroshell) is second best across all weighting scenarios- Very positive when looking at lowest weight- Second best when comparing using an even weighting- Taking off aeroshell made a substantial difference in vehicle closure, resulting in reduced weight

Approach 8 (P-IVHM) is third best across all weighting scenarios- Good ranking across multiple metrics, not near the top in any one weighting scenario

Approach 6 (Uniform TPS) is worst approach due to weight penalty

As the life cycle progresses, higher initial fixed costs (DDT&E, acquisition) are more than offset by r educed operational costs (facilities and recurring) to reduce total Life Cyc le Cost (LCC), however required almost entire progr am life for Approach 12 tobeat baseline

Further refinement of modeling process can be developed- More refined justification for certain k-factor effects

Page 85: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Context 3

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 85

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 86: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Design Summary

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 86

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 87: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 87

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Process for Context 3

The final contexts in which a set of D4Ops design approaches were evaluated were a pair of advanced, far-term architectures.

For the purposes of this study “far-term” was taken to mean a vehicle whose IOC was around 2020. Discussion between study participants, the authors and personnel at NASA KSC, led to changes in the implementation of the D4Ops process for Contexts 3a and 3b.

Unlike Contexts 1 and 2, 3a and 3b would not be based on any particular existing design study.

Instead of developing a baseline Context and then applying D4Ops design approaches one by one as done previously, Contexts 3a and 3b would incorporate D4Ops thinking from the beginning.

Modifications to the initial list of eleven D4Ops design approaches should be made before proceeding to the far-term context analysis.

The authors reviewed the list of ideas conceived during the initial D4Ops brainstorming session and reviewed operational design recommendations published by the Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST).

Several new D4Ops approaches were subsequently added to the original eleven, while some of the existing approaches were combined.

Page 88: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 88

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Top-Level Assumptions

Use of SEI developed methods and tools for design- Consultation of past and current rocket-powered SSTO design concepts- Use of standard Weight Breakdown Structure (WBS) with appropriate modifications

Goal is to incorporate D4Ops guidelines from start to finish in the context of a far-term SSTO vehicle

Expert-defined parameter changes to model inputs (k-factors) reflect the impact of any design approach

Initial development consisted of Outer Mold Line (OML) development in CAD and subsystem packaging

End-to-end subsystem failure rates stayed the same whenever parts were reduced- Assumed additional weight and cost complexity generated in order to maintain the current end-to-end failure rate

When cost complexity changed, generally both DDT&E and TFU costs affected

Weights, Cost, and Safety, and Economics disciplines coupled in a spreadsheet-based meta model known as a ROSETTA models

Use of AATe version 1.0d for this analysis

Simple Life-Cycle Cost Model developed- Main rocket engine is new development- Assumed static flight rates of 10 flights per year- Assumed minimum number of 1 vehicles (orbiter and booster) acquired in program- IOC: 2020, Program End: 2039, DDT&E of 4 years starting in 2013, Vehicle production of 3 years starting in 2017, Facilities

development of 5 years starting in 2015- Additional vehicles purchased due to LOV probability

Page 89: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 89

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

> Lessons learned >

Plan for Context 3

E Context 3a and 3b: Far Term Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO)

Expanded Set: D4Ops Guidelines

Operatio nal Appr oach

Reduce parts count us ing highly

rel iable parts (vs. less rel iabil i ty in

the parts and higher need for

redundancy as in

Shuttle).

Place ox idizer tanks in aft

vehic le location to minimize fi ll

pumping

requirements

P lace both ox idizer AN D fuel

tanks in aft vehic le location

(toriod solution) to reduce feedl ines and s tandardize

fi l l/drain locations

Use external pay load

container s to al low off- line

pay load

integration

Include self-ferry

and power landing to reduce delays assoc iated w ith

non-K SC landing

C reate

symmetrical layout of main

engines (spaced

for maintainabi l i ty)

Reduce part s coun t using high ly reli able part s ( vs. less rel iabilit y in the par ts and higher need fo r r ed undancy as

in S huttl e) . x Pl ace o xidizer tanks in aft v eh icle location to mi nimize fi ll pum ping r equirem en ts x Pl ace b oth oxi dizer AND fuel tanks in af t vehicle

locati on (t oriod sol ution) to r educe feedli nes and standard ize fill /drain locations x Use external payload contai ners to allo w off -line pay load

int eg ration x In cl ude sel f-f err y and power landing to redu ce d el ays associat ed with non -KSC l an ding x Create symmet rical layo ut of m ain engines (spaced for

maint ainabilit y) x

Vehicle System DesignCompatibility

Context 3a

Goal / DRM

Context 3b

Previous SSTOVehicle Studies

Metrics Comparison

5,0 0 0, 00 0

5,2 5 0, 00 0

5,5 0 0, 00 0

5,7 5 0, 00 0

6,0 0 0, 00 0

6,2 5 0, 00 0

No

Te

ch

Tech

A

Tech

B

Te

ch C

Te

ch D

Tech

E

Tech

B+

C

Tech

B+

D

Te

ch C

+D

Tech

C+E

Tech

D+E

Te

ch C

+D

+E

Gro

ss W

eig

ht [l

bm]

Pro bab ilis tic @ 8 0% Con fiden ceDet erministic

Te chnology Port fo lio

With expanded ops approaches With expanded ops approaches.Expand modularity concept to

included palletized main propellants.

Page 90: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 90

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3 Expanded Design Guidelines (1)

Locate propellant tankage and subsystems on pallet modulesIncorporate Modular Design ApproachCONFIGURATION

If applicable, position LOX tank in aft end of fuselage in order to shorten or eliminate feedlinesPlace LOX Tank Aft

Minimize windward TPS penetrations by re-entering atmosphere invertedFly Return Trajectory Inverted

Use Non-toxic / Benign Propellants for OMS / RCS

Reduce RCS Thruster Count

Avoid Using Center Engine

Design Accessible Propulsion System

Reduce Likelihood of Gas / Liquid Leakage

Reduce Main Engine Count

Utilize MPS with Improved Design Life

Design Guideline

Main propulsion system should have improved design life compared with SSME in terms of duration and number of startsPROPULSION

Reduce system complexity by reducing number of main engines (while increasing individual engine reliability)

Design connector and distribution systems to minimize risk of gas or liquid propellant leakage

Propulsion system components should be arranged to facilitate support and maintenance

Avoid multi-engine designs in which a main engine is positioned in the center of a group of engines (poor access for engine maintenance)

Reduce system complexity by employing fewer RCS thrusters than STS baseline (while simultaneously increasing the reliability of individual units)

Avoid chemicals such at hydrazine, MMH, and NTO to improve supportability and maintainability

Description

Page 91: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 91

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3 Expanded Design Guidelines (2)

Include propulsion-focused IVHM system to improve ground checkout, safety, and maintainabilityIncorporate P-IVHM

Where possible, combine propellant tankage and hardware for OMS and RCS to improve supportability and maintainabilityIntegrate OMS / RCS Tankage and Hardware

Use high energy density storage batteries where possible in place of fuel cells to reduce complexityReduce / Eliminate Fuel Cells

Design for minimal TPS penetration locations on vehicle. Use robust TPS design where penetrations are requiredReduce TPS Penetration Points

Use EMA / EHA systems for landing gear, aerosurface actuation, etc.Eliminate Hydraulic SystemsMECHANICAL

Design systems, tankage, and feedlines such that common fluids can be used for propulsion, power, and thermal management functions. Reduce number of unique fluids on vehicle to improve maintainability and supportability

Use Common Fluids for Propulsion, Power, and Thermal Management

INTEGRATION

Reduce Flight to Ground Interfaces

Eliminate Closed Compartments

Use Selectively-Uniform TPS Layout

Use Left / Right Symmetric TPS

Design Guideline

Design mirrored TPS such that left and right TPS layouts are symmetric for a large percentage of the surface areaSTRUCTURES

Increase maintainability and supportability of TPS by using uniform (common shape/thickness) tiles or blankets on selected surfaces

Remove aeroshell in selected areas to eliminate closed compartments and improve maintainability and supportability

Design systems such that number of flight to ground interfaces is reduced compared with STS baselineINTERFACES

Description

Page 92: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 92

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Design Structure Matrix (DSM) for Context 3 Analysis

Feed Forward LinksA: External Geometry of “as-drawn” vehicle elementsB: External Geometry of “as-drawn” vehicle elementsC: Tables of longitudinal aerodynamic coefficientsD: Mixture Ratio Schedule (function of time)E: Gross Weight [lbs]

Total Vacuum Thrust [lbs]Total Engine Exit Area [ft2]Sref [ft2]

F: Mass Ratio (simulation output)Overall Vehicle Mixture Ratio (simulation output)

Feedback LinksG: Calculated Vehicle Gross WeightH: Mass Ratio (guess)

Overall Vehicle Mixture Ratio (guess)

C

Optmizer[OptWorksAutoGA]

Weights andSizing

[MERs]

Trajectory[POST]

ConvergerDISCIPLINE[Tool Name]

F

D

ACAD

[Solid Edge]

Aerodynamics[APAS]

B

E

G

H

Page 93: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 93

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Vehicle Closure Process in ModelCenter© Collaborative Design Environment

Page 94: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Vehicle Summary

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 94

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 95: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 95

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Preliminary D4Ops Context 3a: Geometry and Packaging

External View Internal Packaging View

Page 96: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 96

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Preliminary D4Ops Context 3a: Three-view

1,317,749 lbsGross Weight

153,007 lbsDry Weight

2Main Engine Count

ACRE-92Main Engine Type

Design Specifications

Page 97: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 97

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Preliminary D4Ops Context 3b: Geometry and Packaging

External View Internal Packaging View

Page 98: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 98

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Preliminary D4Ops Context 3b: Three-view

780,344 lbsGross Weight

81,617 lbsDry Weight

2Main Engine Count

ACRE-92Main Engine Type

Design Specifications

Page 99: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 99

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3a Scale Comparison

0 feet

100 feet

200 feet

VARIANT TYPEDRY WEIGHT

LengthHeight (w/o wheels down)

Width

SEI D4Ops Context 3a153 Klbs

159 ft.27 ft.92 ft.

0 meters

30.48 meters

60.96 meters

STS (Orbiter)173 Klbs184.2 ft.76.6 ft.78.1 ft.

SEI D4Ops Context 3b81 Klbs118 ft.18 ft.68 ft.

Page 100: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 100

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3a: Design Approaches to Be Added

Reduce Overall Parts Count

Reduce Engine Count

Selectively Uniform TPS tiles and blankets (shape and thickness)

Reduce TPS Penetrations (Access locations and cutouts) and Repair/Replacement Actions (e.g. Self-healing TPS)

Advanced P-IVHM System

Eliminate Closed Compartments (remove aft aeroshell). Integrate structural and plumbing functions.

Place LOX Tank(s) Aft

Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion and ECLSS (thermal)

D4Ops approaches applied to SSTO in key functions/subsystems areas as shown

Use Modular Approach

Utilize MPS with Improved Design Life

Use Accessible Propulsion System

Page 101: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 101

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3b: Design Approaches to Be Added

Reduce Overall Parts Count

Reduce Engine Count

Selectively Uniform TPS tiles and blankets (shape and thickness)

Advanced P-IVHM System

Eliminate Closed Compartments (no aeroshell). Integrate structural and plumbing functions.

Place LOX Tank(s) Aft

Use Common Fluids and Tanks for Propulsion and ECLSS (thermal)

D4Ops approaches applied to SSTO in key functions/subsystems areas as shown

Use Modular Approach

Utilize MPS with Improved Design Life

Use Accessible Propulsion System

Page 102: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Analysis of Design Approaches

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 102

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 103: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 103

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3a Metrics Summary

Tail Group

Body Group

Thermal Protection

Landing Gear

Main Propulsion

RCS Propulsion

Primary Power

Electrical Conversion and Distribution

EHA Systems

Avionics

Thermal / Environmental Control

Dry Weight Margin

Dry Weight

Cargo (up and down)

Residual Propellants

Reserve Propellants

Landed Weight

Entry/Landing Propellants

Entry Weight

ACS Propellants (consumed on-orbit)

Unusable Propellants

Insertion Weight

Main Engine Ascent Propellants

Gross Liftoff Weight

Weight [lbs]

4,744

76,609

16,845

3,356

22,919

782

1,200

3,233

931

1,702

730

19,957

153,007

12,000

1,246

5,869

172,122

578

172,701

1,878

5,743

180,321

1,137,428

1,317,749

Weight Item

3.1%

50.1%

11.0%

2.2%

15.0%

0.5%

0.8%

2.1%

0.6%

1.1%

0.5%

13.0%

100.0%

% of Dry Weight

System Gross Weight (lbs) 1,317,749

Vehicle LengthWingspanHeight (w/o gear down)

DIMENSIONS

159 ft92 ft27 ft

SCORECARD

Number of Main Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Main Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GHe)

Number of OMS/RCS Oxidizer Tanks

Number of OMS/RCS Fuel Tanks

Number of Coolant Tanks

Number of Fuel Cell Reactant Tanks

Number of APU Reactant Tanks

Number of Water Tanks

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Main Engines

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

4

2

8

8

0

NON-RECURRING AND LIFE CYCLE COST

DDT&E Cost {$M]

Acquisition Cost [$M]

Life Cycle Cost [$M] at 7 and 67 Flights/Year

Cost Per Flight [$M/Flight] at 7 and 67 Flights/Year

SAFETY

Loss of Mission (LOM) MFBF / Reliability

Loss of Vehicle (LOV) MFBF / Reliability

Casualty Rate [per year] at 7 and 67 Flights/Year

OPERATIONS

GSE/Facility Cost: Non-Annualized Cost [$M]

Fixed Operational: Annual Operations Costs [$M]

Variable Costs per Flight [$M]

Minimum Cycle Time / Flight Capability Per Year

SUMMARY METRICS (in FY2003 unless otherwise noted)

$6,147 M

$741 M

$10,396 M / $20,776 M

$30.58 M / $15.50 M

1 in 1,673 Flights / 0.99940

1 in 3,558 Flights / 0.99972

6.20E-04 / 2.44E-03

$347.3 M

$80.1 M

$4.9 M

7.50 days / 38.3 Flights

Page 104: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 104

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3b Metrics Summary

Tail Group

Body Group

Thermal Protection

Landing Gear

Main Propulsion

RCS Propulsion

Primary Power

Electrical Conversion and Distribution

EHA Systems

Avionics

Thermal / Environmental Control

Dry Weight Margin

Dry Weight

Cargo (up and down)

Residual Propellants

Reserve Propellants

Landed Weight

Entry/Landing Propellants

Entry Weight

ACS Propellants (consumed on-orbit)

Unusable Propellants

Insertion Weight

Main Engine Ascent Propellants

Gross Liftoff Weight

Weight [lbs]

2,351

36,513

9,103

1,925

13,573

667

1,200

2,674

534

1,702

730

10,646

81,617

12,000

1,057

4,047

98,721

332

99,053

6,960

3,455

109,468

670,876

780,344

Weight Item

2.9%

44.7%

11.2%

2.4%

16.6%

0.8%

1.5%

3.3%

0.7%

2.1%

0.9%

13.0%

100.0%

% of Dry Weight SCORECARD

Number of Main Oxidizer Tanks

Number of Main Fuel Tanks

Number of Pressurant Tanks (GHe)

Number of OMS/RCS Oxidizer Tanks

Number of OMS/RCS Fuel Tanks

Number of Coolant Tanks

Number of Fuel Cell Reactant Tanks

Number of APU Reactant Tanks

Number of Water Tanks

TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS

Number of Main Engines

Number of Nose RCS Thrusters

Number of Aft RCS Thrusters

Number of OMS Engines

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

5

2

8

8

0

System Gross Weight (lbs) 780,344

Vehicle LengthWingspanHeight (w/o gear down)

DIMENSIONS

118 ft68 ft18 ft

NON-RECURRING AND LIFE CYCLE COST

DDT&E Cost {$M]

Acquisition Cost [$M]

Life Cycle Cost [$M] at 7 and 67 Flights/Year

Cost Per Flight [$M/Flight] at 7 and 67 Flights/Year

SAFETY

Loss of Mission (LOM) MFBF / Reliability

Loss of Vehicle (LOV) MFBF / Reliability

Casualty Rate [ per year] at 7 and 67 Flights/Year

OPERATIONS

GSE/Facility Cost: Non-Annualized Cost [$M]

Fixed Operational: Annual Operations Costs [$M]

Variable Costs per Flight [$M]

Minimum Cycle Time / Flight Capability Per Year

SUMMARY METRICS (in FY2003 unless otherwise noted)

$4,435 M

$559 M

$8,391 M / $18,061 M

$24.68 M / $13.48 M

1 in 1,649 Flights / 0.99939

1 in 3,502 Flights / 0.99971

5.88E-04 / 2.32E-03

$194.2 M

$63.9 M

$4.1 M

6.20 days / 43.4 Flights

Page 105: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 105

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

D4Ops Context 3a and 3b Comparison

Context 3 design process incorporated D4Ops philosophy from the beginning (instead of “baseline” vehicle with approaches applied later) Developed two variants of a 12,000 lb payload SSTO with rapid turnaround capability based upon D4Ops design guidelines

$7.86M$9.61MRecurring Cost per Flight (Fixed + Variable)

$24.68M$30.58MLife Cycle Cost per Flight

81,617 lbs153,007 lbsDry Weight

780,344 lbs1,317,749 lbsGross Weight

Context 3bContext 3aItem

Page 106: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 106

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Summary

The objective of Context 3 was to attempt to use D4 Ops principles from the outset of a new, far-term v ehicle design.

First and foremost, the fact that old habits are hard to break was made evident early on in the Context 3 analysis. - Although the authors set out to use D4Ops from the very beginning, it was found that key early design decisions were based on past experience

and specifically performance-based reasoning. - Traditional conceptual vehicle design begins with a mission requirement such as payload to LEO or number of passengers to a moon colony.

What D4Ops process suggests is that along with this mission requirement a corresponding operational design goal should be established at the start.

- For instance, instead of simply dictating that Context 3a and 3b would be vertical take-off, horizontal landing, rocket-powered vehicles, the process should have begun with a D4Ops-derived operational goal (such as the vehicle shall have the minimum practical number of fluids and tanks).

- The combination of mission requirements and operable design requirements could then have been allowed to drive out a particular vehicle architecture and geometry.

During the brainstorming sessions that preceded the development of Context 3, the idea that modular vehicle systems might enhance operability gained support .

- What was interesting was to watch how the implementation of modular design evolved in the Context. - Early thoughts that the main propellant tanks could be designed to resemble the Space Shuttle EDO pallets were dismissed when faced with the

geometric reality of accommodating the required fluids. - When when thoughts turned to dividing the main propellant volume into smaller cylinders that could presumably be removed through an opening

in the aeroshell, the perceived operational benefits seemed to evaporate. Only when the modular approach was mated with the conformal tanks and deleted aeroshell was the anticipated result achieved.

Perhaps the greater lesson to be learned from the modularity experiment is that had the vehicle configuration and geometry not be predetermined before thoughts of D4Ops approaches were put into action, the question would not have been “How do we make modularity work on this architecture?” but rather “What architecture will enable the best implementati on of modularity?” The answer to the second question reflects the inherent characteristics of a D4Ops philosophy.

Page 107: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Summary

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 107

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Page 108: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 108

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Findings (1)

The D4Ops approaches chosen for this study had a wide variety of impacts on the system.

Application of most of these D4Ops approaches result in systems that performed better operationally (in terms of lower recurring operations cost per flight and turnaround time) at a cost of having worse performance. Application of these approaches generally resulted in systems with heavier dry and gross lift-off weights (GLOW) that required more development funding with higher flight unit acquisition costs.

While many D4Ops design features do impose performance (i.e. weight) penalties, some approaches can provide operational benefits with only slight performance penalties.

The D4Ops approaches chosen for this study were developed through a combination of qualitative and quantitative processes.

It took extensive time and effort to develop and apply the first foundations of such a D4Ops intuition. As more contexts were examined, this process became easier. As the project progressed the study group was more and more concerned about using the D4Ops design intuition that was developed from each previous Context. Thus by Context 3 this study group was readily cognizant of the impact of certain design decisions upon operational metrics of interest. For example, as the project further progressed the impact of reducing to a complete battery power storage system became apparent. Yet even at the end of the study, there was still some hesitancy in taking the D4Ops philosophy to its logical conclusion.

The portion of the RCA database used in this study, based upon Space Transportation System (STS) orbiter processing information from NASA KSC, has some data integrity issues. The work hours in the database may not be reflective of actual man hours on each task. The data should be updated to reflect both the breadth of missions (currently only includes data mainly for the STS-81 flight) and the depth of work required all throughout the organization for such a flight.

Page 109: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 109

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Findings (2)

Constraints were imposed by the pre-selection of Contexts 1 and 2. The top level architecture assumptions inherent in these two contexts, OSP and TSTO RLS, precluded some approaches from being applied. Conversely, this actually may have been beneficial in order to show the discrepancy of current performance-oriented design intuition and the influence of a D4Ops-oriented approach.

Even given flexibility in choosing Context 3, it was potentially too constrained to be able to handle all of the D4Ops approaches developed from the RCA database.

It is recognized that the Context 3 RLS is an easier concept to operate given the single stage nature of the architecture. There is no implication made here that such SSTO systems are the most optimum. The SSTO option was chosen to include a vastly different context than that seen in Contexts 1 and 2.

Design discussion and data transfer issues were made easier by the co-location of both performance and operations discipline experts in the same geographic area (as performed by the authors, located at the same organization).

The conceptual level toolset is limited in its ability to model certain D4Ops design approaches.

Reducing the number of fluids carried on a RLS is beneficial to its operability.

Given the extensive nature of some of the D4Ops approaches on nearer term Contexts 1 and 2, it is speculated that adding such approaches to the current Space Shuttle orbiter would be very difficult and potentially vastly expensive.

Page 110: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 110

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Recommendations

The results of this study should be used to integrate the D4Ops design intuition philosophy into the current conceptual design process. This could include education of the performance-oriented discipline experts of the impact of their design assumptions on operational FOMs.

Better modeling capability should be developed to handle different operational approaches than those currently used on the Space Shuttle. There may be a need to examine the entire operational flow process for these contexts (from landing to launch) to better account for the impact of D4Ops approaches.

Future analyses using the D4Ops philosophy should examine contexts from the same time frame for more accurate comparison of D4Ops approaches.

Additional D4Ops approaches can be developed using similar methods of brainstorming and prioritization as described in this study.

The RCA needs to be updated with additional data gathering and mining.

There may be a potential to examine a more revolutionary use of the D4Ops philosophy in the design process. There may be some follow-on activity from this project that could examine how the execution of the operations discipline could be moved forward in the design process, feeding some portion of the performance closure loop. In this scenario, the operations discipline could actually help determine vehicle level characteristics such as the geometry including the outer mold line (OML).

Page 111: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 111

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Summary

The D4Ops project has developed a generic set of relevant operational approaches based upon past historical knowledge of STS operations

The D4Ops project can be a pathway pointing to features that future designs will need to consider to meet operational goals

Context 3 may be the most important context in terms of acting as showcase of the general D4Ops philosophy starting immediately from the initial design stage

- Context 3 also benefits from lessons learned in applying approaches in Context 1 and 2

Generally adding D4Ops approaches do indeed increase system weights, yet substantial benefits in the operational metrics can result

- A trade-off emerges many times with choosing a heavier but more operationally viable system- For instance, Context 1 results indicate that weight growth of 17% arises when multiple approaches are incorporated, resulting in a

reduction of operational metrics (cost and turnaround time) by more than 40%

Page 112: D4Ops: Design For Operations of Future Reusable Launch Systems

Copyright 2004 SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) All rights reserved.Engineering Today, Enabling Tomorrow Page 112

www.sei.aeroSpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Contact InformationBusiness Address:SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc. (SEI)1200 Ashwood ParkwaySuite 506Atlanta, GA 30338 U.S.A.

Phone: 770-379-8000Fax: 770-379-8001

Internet:WWW: www.sei.aeroE-mail: [email protected]

President: Dr. John E. BradfordPhone: 770-379-8007E-mail: [email protected]

Director of Advanced Concepts: Dr. Brad St. GermainPhone: 770-379-8010E-mail: [email protected]

Project Engineer: Mr. Matthew GrahamPhone: 770-379-8009E-mail: [email protected]

Project Engineer: Mr. Jon G. WallacePhone: 770-379-8008E-mail: [email protected]

Senior Futurist: Mr. A.C. CharaniaPhone: 770-379-8006E-mail: [email protected]

Technical Fellow: Dr. John R. OldsPhone: 770-379-8002E-mail: [email protected]