Slide 1

1 Hybrid Propellant Module (HPM) Commercialization Study Final FY01 Presentation November 6, 2001 Doug Blue (714) 896-3728 Dave Carey (714) 896-3186 Rudy Saucillo (757) 864-7224

Slide 2

2 Table of Contents Introduction Projected Satellites/Constellations HPM Performance Analyses Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) Support Geostationary Orbit (GEO) Support Integrated HPM Traffic Model HPM Economic Viability Analysis Operations and Technology Assessment Summary

Slide 3

3 Introduction

Slide 4

4 HPM Commercialization Study Overview Objective Assess the HPMs potential applicability and benefits for Earths Neighborhood commercial and military space missions in the +2015 timeframe Determine common technology development areas important to commercial/military/HPM systems Goals Determine key areas of need for projected commercial/military missions that HPM may support (e.g., deployment, refueling/servicing, retrieval/disposal) Quantify the levels of potential HPM commercial utilization and develop ROM estimates for the resulting economic impacts Determine common technology development areas to leverage NASA research spinoffs/technology transfers and identify potential cost savings initiatives Study Drivers Projected commercial/military satellite market HPM design (sizing, performance) HPM allocation to support identified markets (HPM traffic models) ETO transportation costs (trades vs. non-HPM architectures, cost of HPM resupply propellant)

Slide 5

5 Key Assumptions Low cost, high reliability RLV or ELV for satellite launch (sensitive, expensive cargo), and possibly a Low cost, potentially lower reliability ELV for launch of HPM resupply propellant (insensitive cargo) Cost per kg goals are assessed as part of the HPM Economic Viability Analysis Industry adopts common infrastructure - attach fittings, refueling ports, plug-and-play avionics, other required I/Fs Goal is to maximize potential HPM commercial opportunities (i.e., greatest number of satellites deployed/serviced with minimum number of required HPMs) Commercial scenarios utilize HPM modules as defined for Exploration missions using performance masses A low cost Earth-to-LEO transportation capability is required Sun Synch GEO GTO Molniya LEO-MEO Polar Commercial Orbits

Slide 6

6 HPM Commercialization Study Methodology HPM Specs Commercial Satellite Traffic Models Military Analogs Ground Rules & Assumptions Technology Initiative Databases Speed curves for LEO, MEO and GEO missions Single and multiple HPM operations HPM Block I and II High and Low Traffic Models Integrated Commercial, Military & Exploration #HPMs and HPM flight rate per mission type ETO estimate for HPM resupply propellant HPM/CTM life cycle revenue potential ETO cost targets (satellite delivery and HPM resupply propellant) HPM/CTM non-recurring start-up cost Supports HPM resupply propellant delivery to LEO Design goal to minimize cost to orbit Objectives include definition of ELV configuration concepts; identification of operations concepts, systems and enabling technologies HPM resizing options Enabling/enhancing technologies for commercial operations Satellite design and operations impacts Refinement of Commercial Traffic Models FY01 Study Products Integrated Commercial, Military & Exploration Traffic Models Preliminary HPM Economic Viability Analysis HPM Enabling Technologies Satellite Design/Ops Impacts HPM Performance Analysis Commercial HPM Traffic Model Development HPM Economic Viability Analysis Technology and Operations Assessment Clean Sheet ELV Concept Development FY02 Study Inputs Outputs Potential HPM support roles HPM operations strategies Best fit HPM orbit planes Analysis of Projected Satellites/Constellations

Slide 7

7 References for Commercial Satellite Traffic Models and Military Analogs Futron Corporation. Trends in Space Commerce March 2001. Provides trends for major space industry segments through 2020 Based on survey polls of 700 global aerospace companies Federal Aviation Administration. 2001 Commercial Space Transportation Projections for Non-geosynchronous Orbits (NGSO) May 2001. [referred to as the Comstac Study] Projects launch demand for commercial space systems through 2010 Based on survey of 90 industry organizations Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). The Military Use of Space; A Diagnostic Assessment February 2001. Assessment of the evolving capabilities of nations and other actors to exploit near- Earth space for military purposes over the next 20-25 years. Based on interviews with key military personnel and web site research Review of numerous Web sites Provided satellite constellation detail

Slide 8

8 AIAA International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems 1999. Information on current launch costs Research and Development in CONUS Labs (RaDiCL) Data Base 1999. Military laboratory technology initiatives NASA Technology Inventory Data Base 2001. NASA funded technology activities Technology Planning Briefing, Boeing Space and Communications, June 2001. Summary of Boeings IRAD programs to enable technologies Interviews with Boeing personnel Orbital Express Program (DARPA) to identify additional military analogs 3 rd Generation RLV Enterprise use of HPM or similar element in overall transportation architecture Additional References

Slide 9

9 Projected Satellites/Constellations

Slide 10

10 Commercial Satellite Market Trends - Futron Study

Slide 11

11 Commercial Satellite Market Trends - Comstac Study Comstac Forecast Trends in Payload Mass Distribution

Slide 12

12 Satellite Market Forecast Commercial NGSO market estimates fluctuating, trends volatile GEO launch demand fairly constant ( >30/year) Spacecraft mass growth continues - especially heavies ( >5,445 kg) Spacecraft trend toward electric propulsion Commercial launch demand trends: Consolidation of spacecraft manufacturers/owners Increasing on-orbit lifetime Business conservatism for financing projects Military Military applications difficult to identify; programs under definition Trend toward greater value and functionality per satellite unit mass; initial picosatellite experiments have been completed AF Science Advisory Board: distributed constellations of smaller satellites offer better prospects for global, real-time coverage and advantages in scaling, performance, cost, and survivability Potential for very large antenna arrays for optical and radio-frequency imaging utilizing advanced structures and materials technologies

Slide 13

13 Current NGSO Commercial Constellation Summary LEO = Low Earth Orbit MEO = Medium Earth Orbit ELI = Elliptical Earth Orbit Ha = Height of Apogee Hp = Height of Perigee Inc = Inclination

Slide 14

14 Current NGSO Military Constellation Summary Commercial/Military parameter summary Total constellation count = 39 Altitude range => 556 to 2,800 km Except for GPS (20,200 km), New ICO (10,390 km), Rostelesat (10,360 km), 3 elliptical constellations Inclination range => 45 to 117 degrees Except for ECCO, ECO-8, and Ellipso (part) all at 0 degrees Orbit planes => 1 to 8 Data available for 27 constellations for HPM traffic model analysis

Slide 15

15 Satellite count = 279 Co-located satellites offset by 2 degree latitude increments for display Source data: www.lyngsat.com Current Distribution of GEO Satellites

Slide 16

16 HPM Commercial Satellite Deploy Scenario 400 KM HPM Parking Orbit Satellite Operational Orbit (or Geostationary Transfer Orbit) (1) ELV launches HPM resupply propellant; HPM/CTM perform rendezvous/dock and refueling operations (2) RLV launches and deploys one or more satellites to LEO (3) HPM/CTM perform rendezvous/docking and maneuver to satellite operational orbit (4) HPM/CTM deploy satellite in operational orbit and return to parking orbit (5) HPM/CTM complete maneuver to parking orbit

Slide 17

17 HPM Commercial Satellite Servicing/Refueling Scenario 400 KM HPM Parking Orbit Satellite Operational Orbit (1) ELV launches HPM resupply propellant; HPM/CTM perform rendezvous/dock and refueling operations (2) RLV or ELV launches and deploys to LEO satellite propellant and/or refurbish components (3) HPM/CTM perform LEO rendezvous/docking and maneuver to satellite operational orbit (4) HPM/CTM refuel and/or refurbish satellite and return to parking orbit (5) HPM/CTM complete maneuver to parking orbit

Slide 18

18 HPM Military Applications HPM could provide next generation, follow-on capabilities (transportation) initially provided by the DARPA Orbital Express Space Operations Architecture Program Orbital Express will develop and demonstrate robotic techniques for satellite: Preplanned electronics upgrade Refueling Repositioning Reconfiguration OE potentially may support a broad range of future US national security and commercial space programs Mission enabling Cost reduction through spacecraft life extension OE incorporates industry standard non-proprietary satellite-to-satellite electrical and mechanical interfaces Demonstration of Orbital Express spacecraft planned for launch in CY2004

Slide 19

19 HPM Performance Analyses

Slide 20

20 HPM Block II Payload/Velocity Speed Curves (Utilizing a Single HPM Per Mission) Preliminary HPM performance analyses based on manipulation of the rocket equation where V = velocity change, g = gravity constant, I sp = specific impulse, mi = initial mass, mf = final mass Curve shows initial comparison of selected mission velocity requirements with various HPM system capabilities Subsequent NGSO analysis based on performance of single HPM/CTM deployment mission

Slide 21

21 HPM Block II Performance Capability vs. Representative Spacecraft

Slide 22

22 HPM Block II Initial Performance Assessment GEO deploy/servicing missions GEO direct deployment/servicing using chemical propulsion is not feasible HPM Block II no payload capability is about 3/4 of the round trip V requirement of 4,195 mps GTO deployment missions ( V = 2,407 mps) using chemical propulsion appear feasible for satellites up to 19,000 kg GEO direct deployment/servicing from equatorial launch site and using electric propulsion is possible although potentially not operationally viable Equatorial launch site is required since orbit plane changes are very difficult using SEP SEP usage increases trip time significantly; results in reduced mission rate Frequent SEP engine and PV cell refurbishment is costly NGSO servicing missions Considerable payload margin exists for LEO satellite direct deployment/servicing MEO/HEO direct deployment/servicing using chemical propulsion is not feasible (e.g., GPS V = 3,400 mps) MEO/HEO deployment is feasible with chemical propulsion via transfer orbit only

Slide 23

23 Satellite Orbit Transfer Definitions Altitude Right Ascension of Ascending Node Equatorial plane 1. Raise HPM altitude Holmann transfer with Vs at perigee and apogee of transfer orbit 2. Change inclination* V perpendicular to orbit plane at ascending or descending node 3. Change right ascension V perpendicular to orbit plane 90 o from ascending or descending node Orbital Volume DefinitionsHPM to Satellite Maneuver Sequence * Sequence steps 2 and 3 reversed if satellite inclination > HPM inclination Inclination

Slide 24

24 Analysis Assumptions Market Future NGSO constellations will exist in similar orbits as recently envisioned Launch Vehicle Delivers payloads to 400 km circular parking orbits at inclination (inc) and right ascension (RA) of stored HPM closest to final orbit HPM HPM chemical engine applies V impulsively at locally optimal orbit locations Perigee and Apogee (i.e., Hohmann transfers) for altitude variation Node crossings for inclination changes Nodal complement locations for right ascension changes A propellant reserve provides 150 mps velocity reserve for maneuvers (e.g., rendezvous, proximity operations and docking, reboost in storage orbits, etc) SEP Not considered in analyses due to mission duration impact and refurbishment costs CTM Propellant is available to autonomously pre-position to HPM rendezvous point as necessary Satellite Satellite battery life available for ~2 days autonomous operation between LEO delivery and HPM docking and mission completion - Boeing Satellite Systems concurs

Slide 25

25 HPM Performance Analyses Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) Support

Slide 26

26 NGSO Constellation Orbital Distribution

Slide 27

27 HPM Capability Analysis HPM to NGSO V Requirements Worksheet HPM Payload Capability Worksheet

Slide 28

28 NGSO Analysis Worst Case Results Approach HPM propulsively changes RA HPM inclination and number of planes adjusted to increase deploy/servicing candidates Record cases with payloads greater than constellations satellite mass Trends Increasing number of planes: Improves Block I performance Marginally improves number of candidate constellations But, adds one HPM/CTM per plane Adjusting inclination : Away from ISS captures one military asset Has minor impact for near polar constellations Results 14 of 27 constellations deployable/serviceable with 3 constellations of 10 HPM/CTMs in each

Slide 29

29 NGSO Analysis Best Case Results Near ISS Polar Sun Synchronous Approach Permit differential RA to align HPM and target orbit planes Assume 1 o RA change for maneuver margin Results (Block II) 24 of 27 constellations may be serviceable with three Block II HPM constellations and possibly only two Block II constellations (inc= 54, 98 deg) HPM plane count a function of allowable phase time

Slide 30

30 Additional Block I NGSO Analysis Modifications/additions needed to HPM Block I constellations to provide the same coverage as higher performing Block II HPM constellations: Adjust inclination of Near ISS HPMs for Block I Inclination = 51 o for full propulsive maneuver to ORBCOMM Worst Case full propulsive results Best Case results following differential RA alignment Additional Mid Inclination HPM Block I constellation needed Inclination = 59 o for propulsive maneuvers following phasing alignment from differential RA

Slide 31

31 NGSO Analysis Differential RA Summary - Commercial Constellations Indicates most applicable HPM deploy/servicing constellation

Slide 32

32 NGSO Analysis Differential RA Summary - Military Constellations Indicates most applicable HPM deploy/servicing constellation

Slide 33

33 NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane Count (Block II)

Slide 34

34 NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane Count (Block II)

Slide 35

35 NGSO Average Mission Phase Time (Block II)

Slide 36

36 HPM Constellation Allocation Most of the current suite of commercial/military constellations are deployable/serviceable using HPM/CTM Block II Requires one constellation of 8 HPM/CTMs near ISS inclination Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near polar inclination Planar launch window opportunities within 30 days Near ISS constellations better accessed from 54 deg vs 51.6 deg inclination parking orbit Near Polar constellations equally accessible from inclinations between 90 and 98 deg parking orbits Equatorial constellations may be accessed by equatorially based HPM/CTMs for GEO missions HPM Block II Nominal Traffic Model for 18 total HPM/CTMs NGSO Traffic Model Conclusions (Block II) For GPS deploy/servicing, single HPM/CTM can deliver GPS to transfer orbit only (400 x 20,200 km @ i=55 o ); Full GPS analysis included as part of GEO Support section

Slide 37

37 HPM Constellation Allocation Most of the current suite of commercial/military constellations are deployable/serviceable using HPM/CTM Block I Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near ISS inclination (inc = 51 deg) Requires one constellation of 4 HPM/CTMs for mid inclinations (inc = 59 deg) Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near polar inclination (inc = 90.3 deg) Planar launch window opportunities within 30 days Equatorial constellations may be deployed/serviced by equatorially based HPM/CTMs for GEO missions HPM Block II Nominal Traffic Model for 24 total HPM/CTMs NGSO Traffic Model Conclusions (Block I) For GPS deploy/servicing - single HPM/CTM can deliver GPS to transfer orbit only (400 x 20,200 km @ i=55 o ); Full GPS analysis included as part of GEO Support section

Slide 38

38 HPM Performance Analyses Geostationary Orbit (GEO) Support

Slide 39

39 GEO/GPS Performance Analysis - Block I and II Same as defined for NGSO analysis, plus Tandem HPM dry weights increased by 10% to account for flow- through propellant feed system Definitions Single HPM/CTM Paired: Two fully loaded HPM/CTM, outbound separately, one with payload / one without, returning together using total remaining propellant Tandem: Multiple HPMs (up to 4) with one CTM docked end to end with propellant flow-through from one HPM to the next one in stack Paired/Tandem: Two sets of two tandem HPMs, each with a single CTM operating as defined above for Paired Assumptions

Slide 40

40 GEO/GPS Performance Summary

Slide 41

41 GEO/GPS Operational Conclusions Performance Single Block I or Block II vehicles are only capable of performing GTO and GPS transfer missions None of the configurations studied can deliver payloads to GEO from 28 deg Only Block II tandem configurations have useful payload capability for either GEO (equatorial launch) or GPS (51.6 deg launch) missions The use of 3 or more HPMs in tandem (required for equatorial GEO) should be considered operationally problematical at best Tandem configurations out perform Paired configurations, for equal numbers of HPMs The currently envisioned HPM configurations are undersized propellant-wise for GEO missions and also suffer from the extra dry weight associated with SEP accommodations Traffic Model Two Block I or II HPM/CTMs delivering up to 15 payloads/year to GTO cover the forecasted 30 GEO payloads per year GPS transfer orbit traffic is included in the NGSO traffic model

Slide 42

42 Integrated HPM Traffic Model

Slide 43

43 HPM/CTM Integrated Traffic Model (Block II) NGSO Near ISS Constellation Support - 8 HPM/CTMs Average mission rate of 1 every 11 days

44 OASIS Integrated Traffic Model (Block II) Refined commercial traffic model based on: Higher usage rate missions only (> 3 flights per HPM per year) Single launch site from ETR to eliminate duplication of ground infrastructure (excludes polar servicing) 50% market share (of high traffic model) Traffic model variation is based on satellite lifetime extremes Lifetime Estimates 5 years 10 years

Slide 45

45 Total Block II HPM/CTM Annual Propellant Requirement

Slide 46

46 HPM Economic Viability Analysis

Slide 47

47 OASIS Economic Viability Analysis Overview Objective Provide a preliminary economic viability assessment of HPM/CTM in future commercial satellite deployment/servicing markets as defined by the integrated traffic model Approach Compare potential life cycle earnings over range of critical economic factors Identify economic factors with strong influence on earnings Determine the economic sensitivity and establish hurdle values for these critical factors Earning levels necessary for economic viability include allowance for non- recurring start up costs Start up costs per HPM/CTM include: HPM/CTM procurement (ROM estimate: ~$150 million each), and initial launch, development and deployment of commercial peculiar infrastructure (e.g., HPM propellant processing facilities) Start up costs per HPM/CTM assumed not to exceed $500 million; actual value varies inversely with fleet size Industry leverages government investment in infrastructure development

Slide 48

48 Identification of Critical Economic Factors Critical Economic Factors Charge to deploy satellite to operational orbit Propellant delivery cost to LEO ($ per kg) Payload (satellite) cost ($ per kg) to LEO HPM/CTM use rate Life cycle earnings Ch Prop P/L R Definition -Total charge to customer to deploy their satellite -Establishes cost to resupply HPM with full load (~32,000 kg) of propellant per deployment -5,000 kg payload, calculated at twice the $/kg as propellant -HPM/CTM flights per year (based on traffic model analysis) -LCE = [Ch - (Prop + P/L)]*R*10 year HPM/CTM life

Slide 49

49 Economic Sensitivity to Satellite Deployment Cost Range of deployment charges was selected to represent a substantial reduction over current launch costs for similar sized satellites Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for non- recurring start-up costs Propellant delivery costs must be less than $600 to $1,600 per kg over range of charges for satellite deployment

Slide 50

50 Rational for Selection of Parametric Satellite Deployment Costs $70 million upper value of the range offers $15 to $30 million dollar cost advantage over an existing launch vehicle capable of deploying 5,000 kg to GTO (i.e., Delta IV medium +4,2) $50 million nominal value is competitive, cost wise, with a Delta III class vehicle, but offers substantially greater payload capability to GTO, or multi payloads to lower energy orbits $30 million minimum deployment cost represents a highly competitive option which can deploy Delta IV medium +4,2 class payloads for less than the cost of a Delta II

Slide 51

51 Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate Range of use rates was established by the HPM integrated traffic model (flight rates of less than 6/yr produce poor economics at this deployment charge) Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for non- recurring start-up costs Propellant delivery costs must be less than $300 to $600 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates for this minimal satellite deployment charge

Slide 52

52 Range of use rates established by the HPM integrated traffic model (flight rates of less than 3/yr produce poor economics at this deployment charge) Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for non- recurring start-up costs Propellant delivery costs must be less than $700 to $1,100 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates for this nominal satellite deployment charge Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate

Slide 53

53 Range of use rates established by the HPM integrated traffic model (flight rates of less than 3/yr produce minimal economics at this deployment charge) Area of economic viability defined by positive life cycle earnings with allowance for non- recurring start-up costs Propellant delivery costs must be less than $1,300 to $1,600 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates for this maximum considered satellite deployment charge Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate

Slide 54

54 HPM Economic Viability Analysis Conclusions Government (NASA or DOD) provides OASIS element DDT&E funding. Industry will leverage government investment in infrastructure development. Enough lifecycle revenue to: oCover start-up costs including HPM/CTM procurement/launch, and development and deployment of commercial peculiar infrastructure (e.g., HPM propellant processing facilities). These start-up costs are estimated to be as much as $0.5 billion per HPM/CTM. oProvide the desired commercial return on investment. Low propellant delivery cost, less than $1,000/kg for the nominal $50 million OASIS satellite deployment charge. HPM use rates greater than 3 flights per year.

Slide 55

55 Operations and Technology Assessment

Slide 56

56 HPM Sized for Direct GEO Servicing 400 km 28 Degree Initial Orbit Requirements Deliver 5,000 kg to GEO orbit ( one way V = 4,200 m/sec ) Return HPM/CTM to 400 km 28 degree orbit Assumptions Block II technology HPM dry weight increased to account for additional propellant Additional dry mass based on 0.94 propellant tank mass fraction { propellant / ( propellant + dry mass) = 0.94 } Results Usable propellant increased to 70,513 kg from 30,826 kg (39,687 kg additional propellant) HPM dry mass increased by 2,533 kg to 6,637 from 4,104 kg

Slide 57

57 Clean Sheet ELV Propellant Delivery Requirements Payload Delivery (LOX and LH2) 32 K kgs total per HPM mission 27 K kgs LOX 5 K kgs LH2 1.4 M kgs per year for fleet (based on refined traffic model 1.2 M kgs LOX 0.2 M kgs LH2 Launch rate - 1 HPM mission per 8 days Mission orbits LEO - 400 km circular ~ Half of missions @ 28 and 55 o inclination ~ Half of missions @ 90 and 98 o inclination Reliability - overall system reliability = 0.9 Cost - $1000/kg of payload to orbit On Orbit Ops support for HPM/CTM control of: Auto rendezvous/dock Propellant transfer to HPM Operational Date - 2016 Design Implications Launch Vehicle Large payload two stage ELV, no solids Encapsulated payload Manufacturing and Launch Operations Vehicle, engine mfg, LO2, LH2 production at launch site(s) Horizontal integration, erect on pad Small mission analysis & launch support team Two sites (ETR, WTR) or new site (0 to 90 o azimuth) Typical Technology Initiatives Nanotube structures Liquid Injection TVC Photonic Avionics Alternatives Rail gun (i.e., maglev) Air launch with reusable upper stage RLV Focused market - omit polar missions

Slide 58

58 Technology Assessment Review of 1999 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) database Developed by Advanced Systems and Technology Directorate All studies performed at Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) Technology studies related to HPM commercial usage On-board autonomy Autonomous Remote Servicing - Automate mechanical functions, such as supply, maintenance and inspection, on on-orbit spacecraft. These functions extend the life of spacecraft without requiring the tremendous expense of manned repair missions, restriction to STS reachable orbits, or extensive redundant components. Mission data processing and exploitation Space simulation framework - Reduce development and ops risk and cost of designing, building, testing, launching and operating satellites Command and Control Multi-mission Advanced Ground Intelligent Control - Support operational concepts of reducing skill levels and number of operators, reducing training time, enabling operators skilled in multiple satellite operations, and providing these capabilities at a greatly decreased acquisition, operations, and maintenance cost Advanced Astrodynamics Development and Analysis - Develop quantitative methods to assess risk of collision, development of techniques to optimize spacecraft maneuvers, and develop methods for autonomous constellation operations.

Slide 59

59 Summary

Slide 60

60 Principal Results and Conclusions HPM Commercial Traffic Models HPM commercial traffic models have been developed based on satellite delivery; considered the floor for potential HPM commercial applications Future DoD missions may provide additional HPM applications/usage rates HPM Economic Viability HPM/CTM has commercial potential when used as an orbital transfer stage in conjunction with a low cost booster to LEO HPM commercial viability is highly sensitive to infrastructure costs, mission rates and Earth-to-LEO launch costs Single site for HPM propellant launch is highly desirable to minimize ground infrastructure costs Required HPM propellant launch costs are consistent with NASA DPT requirements for insensitive cargo Required costs for satellite launch to LEO are consistent with SLI 2nd Generation RLV goals for sensitive cargo

Slide 61

61 FY02 Activities Follow-on activities under RASC have been proposed for FY02: Refinement of potential HPM commercial and military applications Life cycle cost assessment of HPM for commercial and exploration applications Clean sheet analysis of a very low-cost commercial expendable launch vehicle (ELV) designed to support HPM on-orbit propellant re-supply Continued identification of HPM commercial applications-specific technology requirements and technology candidates

Slide 62

62 Acronym List CSBACenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments CTMChemical Transfer Module ELIElliptical Orbit ELVExpendable Launch Vehicle ETOEarth to Orbit GEOGeostationary Earth Orbit GPSGlobal Positioning System GTOGeostationary Transfer Orbit HaHeight of Apogee HpHeight of Perigee HPMHybrid Propellant Module IncInclination of Orbit ISSInternational Space Station LEOLow Earth Orbit LH2Liquid Hydrogen LOXLiquid Oxygen MEOMedium Earth Orbit NGSONon-Geostationary Orbit OEOrbital Express RARight Ascension of Ascending Node RLVReusable Launch Vehicle ROMRough Order of Magnitude SEPSolar Electric Propulsion TVCTrust Vector Control DARPADefense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Slide 63

63 References World Space Systems Briefing, the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., presented during the IAF 52 nd International Astronautical Congress in Toulouse, France, dated October 2, 2001. Trends in Space Commerce, Futron Corporation, dated March, 2001. 2001 Commercial Space Transportation Projections for Non- geosynchronous Orbits (NGSO), Federal Aviation Administration, dated May, 2001. The Military Use of Space; A Diagnostic Assessment, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, dated February, 2001. AIAA International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, dated 1999. Research and Development in CONUS Labs (RaDiCL) Data Base, National Reconnaissance Office, dated 1999. NASA Technology Inventory Database, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, maintained on-line. Technology Planning Briefing, Boeing Space and Communications Group, dated June, 2001. Roy A. E., The Foundations of Astrodynamics, MacMillan Company, dated 1965. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Slide 64

64 Backup

Slide 65

65 HPM Block I Payload/Velocity Speed Curves (Utilizing a Single HPM Per Mission) 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000 Payload Delivery Delta Velocity* (mps) Payload (kgs) GEO No Plane Change GTO GPS Required Impulsive V's from 400 km circular parking orbit (27deg inc) Required electric V from equatorial 400 km circular to GEO GEO Deploy P/L (all electric) Retrieve P/L (all electric) P/L chem out + HPM elec in (hybrid stage) HPM System Capability Ref: LaRC speed curves * Round trip V = 2*payload delivery Deploy P/L (all chemical) Retrieve P/L (all chemical) HPM/CTM Block I Performance Preliminary HPM performance analyses based on manipulation of the rocket equation where V = velocity change, g = gravity constant, I sp = specific impulse, mi = initial mass, mf = final mass Curve shows initial comparison of selected mission velocity requirements with various HPM system capabilities Subsequent NGSO analysis based on performance of single HPM/CTM deployment mission

Slide 66

66 HPM Block I Performance Capability vs. Representative Spacecraft Iridium KH-12 New ICO Trumpet KH-11

Slide 67

67 Additional NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane Count (Block I) Block II data for the polar HPM constellation at 90.3 o also applies for Block I concept

Slide 68

68 NGSO Average Mission Phase Time (Block I) Block II data for the polar HPM constellation at 90.3 o also applies for Block I concept

Slide 69

69 HPM/CTM Integrated Traffic Model (Block I) NGSO Near ISS Constellation Support - 10 HPM/CTMs Average mission rate of 1 every 17 days