Requirements and Operations Team

1
Requirements and Operations Team

• Industry Day Briefing
• 17 January, 2002

2
Outline

• Team Products
• Requirements analysis and process
• CONOPS development
• Joint requirements matrix
• Design reference missions
• Comparison of AF and NASA requirements
• Questions relevant to Requirements/Ops

3
Team Products

• Mission Needs Document A document describing
  the high-level technical and mission needs of the
  developed system
• Level I Requirements Document Quantify,
  compare, and combine, to the extent possible,
  traceable AF and NASA requirements
• Concept of Operations Document A description of
  how the prototype system is to be operated
• Design Reference Missions A technical
  description of the missions used as reference in
  the design of the system

4
Requirements Analysis

• Analysis Addressed Five Key Questions
• Question 1. What is the impact of an RLV system
  towards meeting present or projected NASA/AF
  requirements?
• Question 2. If impact warrants an RLV system,
  when is it needed?
• Question 3. What characteristics would an RLV
  system need to meet NASA/AF mission
  requirements?
• Question 4. How do the characteristics of an AF
  system compare to those of a NASA system?
• Question 5. What is the integrated set of
  requirements?

5
Requirements Process
Strategic Visions
Current Missions (to be)
Future Missions/ Concepts (could be)
Mission Area Plans
Downward Trace Requirements
Quantify Impact on Requirements, Need Dates,
Operations
Sub-Mission areas
Questions 1 2
Identify Mission Attributes (e.g. responsiveness,
safety)
Review Past Studies
Determine Range in Characteristics Across
Sub-mission Areas
Question 3
Map attributes to requirements in each
sub-mission area
Review and Validate
Reconcile NASA/AF Requirements to Develop an
Integrated System
Questions 4 5
6
CONOPS Development

• Consolidates RLV prototype missions, operations,
  security, safety, and logistics
• AF missions stressors
• Force Applications Global Strike
• Force Enhancement Responsive Tactical
  Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
  (ISR)
• Space Control Space Superiority
• Space Support Satellite Constellation
  Reconstitution. Refueling and Surge
• NASA Missions
• Alternate Access to International Space Station
• Demonstrate technologies or objectives for
  follow-on systems
• 2nd Draft complete - will evolve as required

7
Requirements MatrixGeneral Mission
8
Requirements Matrix General Mission (contd)
9
Requirements MatrixSites
10
Requirements MatrixPayloads
11
Requirements MatrixFlight Safety/Reliability
12
Requirements MatrixOperability
13
Prototype RLV Design Reference Mission Summary
14
Comparison of AF and NASA Requirements

• Concurrence in many areas Reliability De-orbit
  mass Orbits Abort Scenarios
• NASA and AF requirements do not currently
  converge in certain areas
• Weight delivered to orbit
• Payload 15 - 25 K lbs
• Crewed 45 K lbs
• Responsiveness AF lt 12 hours to 2 days NASA
  weeks
• On-orbit capability Duration and
  maneuverability substantially higher for NASA
  (ISS driven)
• Sortie Rate AF driven by future conflict
  scenario - could be high NASA low
• Human rating AF no requirement NASA needed in
  FY12 system
• Weather The AF has a requirement to operate in
  stronger winds, more precipitation and a wider
  range of temperatures.
• Launch / Landing AF has a requirement to
  operate from inland CONUS AFB.

15
Questions For IndustryRequirements/Ops

• What are the technology "long poles" to enable
  responsive space access (i.e., capable of
  achieving aircraft levels of cost, reliability
  and safety) over the next 25 years (Including
  vehicle, propulsion, ground infrastructure,
  operations, payloads, sensors, etc.)? Given your
  knowledge of currently funded NASA and Air Force
  programs, what would be your recommended
  technology roadmap? What changes and/or
  additional long-term technology investments
  should begin within the next seven years?
• What RLV technologies does your company feel are
  state-of-the-art and ready for full-scale
  development today relative to your understanding
  of NASA and Air Force RLV requirements?
• What is the earliest your company believes it is
  feasible to field a next generation RLV system(s)
  capable of meeting NASA and Air Force
  requirements? Please elaborate on your
  rationale and associated milestones. What would
  be the top 10 issues going into full-scale (or
  engineering and manufacturing) development of the
  next RLV (e.g., funding, technology maturity,
  immature requirements, joint program complexity,
  etc.)?

16
Questions For IndustryRequirements/Ops (contd)

• What are the drivers for meeting operability
  needs? What is the value of early flight
  demonstrations using state-of-the-art systems
  (existing engines, TUFI TPS, SOA avionics,
  electric valve actuators, etc.) for demonstrating
  operability? What relationship (if any) exists
  between the size of the launch vehicle and
  operability? Describe/define observed
  interactions between safety and operability needs
• Given your knowledge of NASA and Air Force
  requirements, what degree of commonality does
  your company believe is possible between NASA and
  Air Force RLV architectures and associated
  elements (including ground and flight systems)?
  Does your company see commonality between the
  NASA/AF needs and mission requirements and a
  commercial opportunity? Do you believe a modular
  RLV concept is possible whereby we support a near
  term demonstrator in the 15-25K payload class,
  and that booster in turn is a modular component
  of a larger RLV?