Ares I-1 Flight Test ATP Request

1
Ares I-1 Flight TestATP Request
Bob Ess/JSC Jim Taylor/MSFC Carol Scott/KSC
CxCB 8/23/06
2

• Goal
• Review progress on major tasks, issues
• Update Ares I-1 cost and schedule requirements
  for FY07 FY10
• Request program ATP

3
Executive Summary

• FY06 work content approved at 5/16/06 CxCB
• Preliminary FY06 FY10 budget requirements
  presented
• Open work identified to mature costs
• Open Work to determine budget requirements is
  completed
• Avionics contract awarded
• Launch complex plan is complete
• Flight Test Level 2 requirements have been
  matured
• Independent cost reviews conducted
• Will not know more until get past L3 SRRs and
  approach PDRs
• Summary of budget requirements

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Total
1st Flight
2nd Flight
4

• Flight Test Vehicle Status
• MSFC/Jim Taylor

5
Ares I-1 Integrated Vehicle

• Ares I-1 Key Features
• First Stage
• 4-Segment Motor plus
• empty cylinder to simulate a 5-segment motor
• Forward skirts containing parachute system and
  bulk of vehicle electronics hardware
• Upper Stage Simulator (USS)
• Mass, CG, and OML model only
• J-2x mass/model
• Interstage for on-orbit separation
• Houses RCS for vehicle roll control
• CM/LAS/SM
• Mass, CG, and OML model only
• Characteristics
• Mass, CG, and shape sized to simulate the CLV
• Trajectory selected to simulate CLV dynamic
  pressure at Max Q and separation
• Instrumented with video and sensors
• Development Flight Instrumentation (DFI)
• Telemetry and recovery of 1st Stage Data
  Collection System (DCS) required

CM/LAS Model
Primary avionics and DFI (not shown)
Water Tank not shown
Upper Stage Model
RCS
USS J-2x Engine Mass Model not shown
Interstage
Booster Separation Motors (not shown)
Frustum
Forward Skirts
First Stage
Empty Cylinder
4-Segment Motor
Avionics not shown
6
Ares I-1 FTV Recent Accomplishments

• Completed agreement with LaRC to provide Ares I-1
  vehicle integration functions.
• Awarded Avionics Contract on August 8, 2006.
• Slightly higher than preliminary ROMS
• Atlas heritage hardware that is single fault
  tolerance
• Completed agreement with GRC to deliver upper
  stage and SM simulators.
• Completed agreement with MSFC engineering - with
  support from on-site contractor - to provide RCS
  solution.
• RCS solution still under review. Cost estimates
  blanket trade space
• Completing SRR planning and Point-of-Departure
  (POD) FTV Concept
• FTV SRR kickoff 9/11/06 _at_ LaRC
• Board membership established
• Completed assessment of need for a GVT and CLV
  VICB agreed that alternate (and less costly)
  approach is sufficient for this flight test.
• Scope still TBD and IS a cost threat of xx
  million
• Completed bottoms up cost review (with PPC).

7
Risk Areas

• CoFTR requirements need to be defined.
• 1st stage large metal structures schedule
  (critical path).
• Modal Testing needs to be defined and impacts
  assessed. (In work)
• RCS concept needs to be defined. (In work)
• Potential Cost Impact for Modal Testing
• Changes in Range Safety System Approach

8
SRR Plan

• Schedule
• Data Package Sept. 7
• Kick-off _at_ LaRC Sept. 11
• RID Cut-off Sept. 18
• Board Sept. 29
• The FTV SRR will be conducted in accordance with
  Tailored for this test
• NPR 7123, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and
  Requirements, Draft.
• CxP70006, Constellation Program SRR Plan, Draft
• Exit Criteria
• Requirements definition, allocation and flowdown
  of driving requirements have been defined down to
  the elements.
• The requirements, design approaches, and
  conceptual design will fulfill the test needs
  within the estimated cost and schedule
  constraints

9
SRR Review Boards

• Purpose
• Screen, Review and Disposition RIDS
• Review Board
• Jim Taylor, FITO Manager, Chair
• Vince Rausch, AVIO Manager, Chair
• Dan Gautner, Chief Engineer (GRC)
• Clayton Turner, Chief Engineer (LaRC)
• Walt Englund, Chief Vehicle Systems (LaRC)
• Alan Phillips, Director SMA (LaRC)
• Preston Jones, Director Propulsion Systems (MSFC)
• Jack Bullman, Director Vehicle Systems (MSFC)
• AD-HOC
• Garry Lyles, Chief Engineer ESMD (HQ)
• Bob Ess, Chief Cx Flight Testing (JSC)

• Pre-Board
• Joe Brunty, FITO Chief Engineer, Chair
• Paul Moses, AVIO Deputy Manager, Chair
• Dave Shuster, Chief Structures and Thermal (LaRC)
• Larry Levitt, Chief Aerodynamics (LaRC)
• Dan Muri, Chief GNC (LaRC)

10
SRR Review Boards

• Pre-Board (contd)
• Jose Caraballo, SMA (LaRC)
• Marc Verhage, Chief Engineer ELP Upper Stage
  (MSFC)
• Mike Ise, Chief Engineer ELP Upper Stage Engine
  (MSFC)
• Tim Ezell, Chief Engineer ELP First Stage (MSFC)
• Steve Clarke, Manager Ground Operations (KSC)
• RID Screening Team
• Dan Gautner, Chief Engineer (GRC)
• TBD, Fabrication (GRC)
• Clayton Turner, Chief Engineer (LaRC)
• Walt Englund, Chief Vehicle Systems (LaRC)
• Jill Marlowe, Chief Thermal (LaRC)
• Alan Phillips, Director SMA (LaRC)
• TBD, Propulsion Systems (MSFC)
• Steve Ryan, Ares-1 AFSIG (MSFC)
• TBD, Avionics (MSFC)
• TBD, Software (MSFC)
• Dave Shuster, Chief Structures and Thermal (LaRC)

11
Roll Control System (RoCS)

• Requirement Provide a system to control any
  induced roll during the first stage flight.
  Flight objective to characterize induced roll.
• Approach - carry 2 of 3 options forward. All
  approaches use propellant storage and pressurant
  system derived from Peacekeeper. Low cost,
  robust system with greater than needed capacity.
  Three thruster option
• Small investments being made to maintain options
  till Ares I-1 PDR
• Actions underway to validate R-40 availability

Option Issues - Pros/Cons Cost / Schedule
Shuttle R-40 Best fit, quantities depend on Shuttle needs Costs to refurb some valves could be schedule concern if late start
Peacekeeper Boost Right size, duty cycle needs testing, large inventory Costs to test duty cycle, modify nozzles, cost and schedule similar to R-40
Peacekeeper Attitude Control Small thrusters, need large quantity, adds complexity, avionics costs Not in consideration at this time
12
Ares I-1 Modal Testing Status

• Flight control system development requires
  understanding of modal response of FTV.
• Joint stiffness is major contributor to modal
  response
• Sensitivity analyses show joints in central
  region of stack have most significant impact on
  stiffness/modal response
• Quasi-static, forced deflection testing can
  effectively characterize these joints
• Candidate test approach is identified
• Additional coordination and analysis required
  across FTV and elements (Upper Stage Simulator,
  First Stage)
• Trades and analyses being scoped to assess
  options
• Detailed plan and cost/schedule impact remain to
  be completed, ROM estimate indicates test
  approach could cost up to an additional 10M.
• Special Test Equipment and Fixtures/GSE for
  Large Structure are a major driver
• Test Location and Timing could impact cost and
  schedule significantly
• Current Critical Path (First Stage Large
  Structures) does not allow time for testing in
  the flow to April Launch date.

13
Ares I-1 Modal Testing Status

• Near-Term Assessments will continue to quantify
  Modal Assessment Options.
• Option 1 - Complete Joint Testing as currently
  being planned
• Pros Reduces Risk, Increases Understanding for
  ARES I
• Cons Potential Cost, Potential Schedule Impact
• Option 2 - Analytical Verification (I.e.
  Eliminate Joint Testing)
• Pros Eliminates Option 1 Cons
• Cons May increase Flight Test Risk (Needs
  Quantification)
• Near-Term Assessment Plans
• Week of 22-August - Modal/Joint Testing TIM _at_ GRC
• September - Complete FTV SRR to Baseline
  Requirements
• Early October - Review of Option Approaches _at_ ATK
• Late October - Project Ares Review of Recommended
  Approach (via AFSIG/Boards)
• Early November - Recommended Approach Closure
  with CxPO (via FTWG/Boards)

14
Lockheed Martin (LM) Responsibilities

• LM baseline is to provide the Atlas V avionics
  system with minimal modifications
• The Atlas V system includes
• System Integration Lab (SIL)
• Redundant Ground Command, Control,
  Communication (GC3)
• MVan LM asset loaned to Ares I-1
• Atlas Space Operations Center (ASOC)
• Fault Tolerance Approach
• Single Fault Tolerant - Airborne
• Flight Computer
• ATVC (quad redundant)
• URCU (power distribution sequencing)
• Main vehicle batteries
• GFE ordnance control
• Rate Gyros
• Range Safety System
• APU speed control

15
Ares I-1 Bottom-Up Estimate
16
Ares I-1R Bottom-Up Estimate (October 2009)
17
Two Flights Bottom-Up Estimate
18
(No Transcript)
19
Activities in FY07

• Ares I-1R Activities (if funded)
• First Stage
• Long lead procurement
• Forward Structure Fabrication
• Upper Stage
• Buy Raw Material/GSE
• CM/LAS
• Buy Material/GSE
• RCS
• Begin Peacekeeper parts recovery
• Avionics
• Hardware purchase via Atlas lot-buy (must be
  executed in 07)

• Ares I-1 Activities
• AVI
• Baseline Element Requirements
• Aero Testing
• First Stage
• Finalize Design
• Long Lead Procurement
• Begin Building Components
• Upper Stage
• Finalize Design
• Purchase Material
• Begin Building
• CM/LAS
• Begin Design and Fabrication
• RCS
• Peacekeeper parts recovery
• Complete Initial Design Start Final Design
• Avionics

20
Summary

• Completed cost update and evaluation
• Ares I-1 overall cost grew 13M due to avionics
  costs
• For FY07
• Ares I-1 needs 80M (after carrying over unused
  FY06)
• Ares I-1R needs 9.5M
• Completed Independent Cost Assessments
• Deterministic Review validated Bottom-Up
  Estimates
• Probabilistic Review will present Reserve
  Recommendations
• Avionics contract awarded
• Working modal testing impacts
• SRR in September

21
Ascent Development Flight Test (Ares I-1) at
LC-39
Carol A. Scott LX-V Kennedy Space Center August
11, 2006
22
KSC Summary

• Continued assessing feasibility of processing and
  launching Ares I-1 utilizing the KSC Launch
  Complex 39 facilities.
• No futher KSC Operational constraints to the Ares
  I-1 Design Center team have been identified
• Previous identified constraint is access
  limitations beyond existing shuttle access
  structure
• Upper Stage Simulator and CEV/LAS Similator
  Design Center has incorporated internal stacking
  methodology into their design
• SOMD Facility Transition plan for Pad B and MLP
  have not changed and supports Ground Ops needs
• HST Potential Impact to be resolved
• Develop Ground Infrastructure concept and
  implement modifications to the processing
  infrastructure.
• Ares I-1 Ground Operation Project Plans in work
• Ares I-1 Infrastructure Development Project Plan
  in work
• KSC SRR scheduled for Oct 23, 06
• LC39 Operations Concept is technically feasible
  for Ares I-1 for less than 70M supporting a
  April 15, 09 launch date.
• Cost estimates have not changed since May 16 CxCB
  
• Independent Cost assessment has been performed
  and no issues were identified
• Schedule is being refined and no changes to major
  L2 milestones have been identified
• Ops Concept has minimal changes

23
Overview
Ares I-1 on existing MLP-1 at pad B with modified
FSS
24
Ares I-1 KSC Development Impacts

• Possible Scope Removal
• Lightning Protection Modifications (4.0M)
• Long Term CLV Lightning Protection Accelerated
• Currently in study phase
• 3 Tower Catenary Concept to protect CLV/CaLV
• Design SOW due out in August, 2006
• May still have to implement Ares I-1 solution if
  CLV solution cannot be completed in time for
  launch.
• C of F funding availability
• Potential for Finding of Significant Impact in
  the Environmental Assessment
• Existing ground contaminations may delay
  implementation depending on contamination levels
  and disposal issues
• In-scope Impacts
• Removal of lightning mast and cable from FSS
  (1.5M)
• 3rd FSS Access Arm (1.8M)
• Integrated Network Control System (INCS)
  modifications to MLP-1 (2.0M)
• Added Content
• Cover SRB/SSME Exhaust Holes (2.4M)
• Rollout Stabilization (TBD)
• Potential Impacts
• HST LON and the need to retain Pad B in Shuttle
  configuration

25
ARES I-1 KSC Ground Operations Integrated Schedule
26
Cost Summary for KSC No cost changes have been
identified since May 16 CxCB
Ground Systems Development and Operations cost
summary
Summary FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total
Total 4,845.8 19,657.0 21,372.6 23,582.9 0.0 69,458.3
Material 493.0 5,100.0 8,787.0 1,151.2 0.0 15,531.2

Development FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total
Total 4,845.8 17,147.0 16,272.6 3,757.8 0.0 42,023.2
Material 493.0 5,100.0 8,787.0 637.0 0.0 15,017.0
WYE 1,584.0 3,795.6 3,442.6 1,406.3 0.0 10,228.5
CoF 280.0 4,169.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,449.0
FTE 2,488.8 4,082.4 4,043.0 1,714.5 0.0 12,328.7
FTEs 20.4 32.4 31.1 12.7 0.0 0.0
WYEs 14.4 33.5 29.5 11.7 0.0 0.0

Operations FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total
Total 0.0 2,510.0 5,100.0 19,825.1 0.0 27,435.1
Material 0.0 0.0 0.0 514.2 0.0 514.2
WYE 0.0 1,250.0 2,500.0 12,560.9 0.0 16,310.9
CoF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FTE 0.0 1,260.0 2,600.0 6,750.0 0.0 10,610.0
FTEs 0.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
WYEs 0.0 11.0 21.4 104.5 0.0 0.0

• Ares I-1R can be accomplished 6 months after
  Ares I-1 for a ROM Cost of 13 M plus
• escalation

27
Forward Work

• Assess rollout stabilization design approach,
  avionics cooling needs, instrumentation
  requirements, MLP exhaust hole covers, Pad B
  access arm requirements.
• Evaluate integrated GSE needs and transportation
  methods.
• Ballast options
• Baselined Water Fill system at Pad
• RCS operations at VAB or Pad
• Baselined for Pad until design matures
• PRACA and CM processing systems definition
• KSC plans to utilize SOMD and SOMD Contractor
  thru SFOC/SPOC JoFOC contract

28

• L2 Wrap up

29
L2 Cost Estimates, 1 flight(K)

• FY07 FY08 FY09 Total
• NISN/MILA 430K 600K 520K 1600K
• Range 50K 65K 105K 200K
• Ground Based
• Imagery 0K 400K
  400K 800K
• Total L2 Costs 480 1065K 1025K
  2600K

To be Updated Bounding assumptions used.
Assumes using current ground station capability
but new transmitter hardware (compatibility
testing required) ROM Delta costs that are not
included in GO budget request
30
Total Costs2 Identical Flights (M)
2nd flight D
1st flight
Total

• Vehicle 235 98.5 333.5
• 1st stage 34.9
• U/S 33.8
• CEV/LAS 7.8
• RCS 24.4
• Avionics 91.9
• VI 31.0
• PPC, SMA, Ops Recovery 11.1
• Ground 69.5 12.5 82
• Facilities 42.0
• Operations 27.5
• L2 Costs 2.6 1.0 3.6
• Total Cost 308M 112M
  419M

Cost Phasing (M)
(M) FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Total
CLV 17.5 85.5 86.2 42.5 3.0 0.0 234.7
CLV 2nd flight 0.0 9.5 42.3 32.1 13.9 0.6 98.4
KSC 4.9 19.6 21.4 23.6 12.5 0.0 82.0
L2 Costs 0.0 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.6
Total 22.4 115.1 151 99.2 30.4 0.6 419M
31
2nd Flight Options

• PMR Rev 1 budget submittal does not include a
  2nd flight of Ares I-1
• May be acceptable if Ares I-1 is completely
  successful
• Lack of backup flight opportunity greatly adds to
  risk of Ares I-2 (ADFT-1)
• Objectives of 2nd flight assumed to be same as
  1st flight an flown as a backup (Ares I-1R)
• Scenarios to preserve the option of a 2nd flight
  are under review
• Option 1 Preserve flight by spending small
  amount of in FY07 9.5M
• Option 2 Consider flight options for ground test
  hardware (avionics, ground test articles etc)

32
Key Open Work

• Assess cost/schedule impacts of modal testing
• Determine need for Shuttle RCS Thrusters and
  availability
• Baseline Flight Test Plan
• Document plan for roles of contractors in this
  flight test
• Roles of design center civil servants and
  contractors in ground processing
• Agree and document expectations for CoFTR and
  FTRR
• Completion of FTV and GO SRRs

33
Recommendation

• Provide budget authority to the following
  organizations to execute Ares I-1 flight test.
• Allocate money on a dedicated WBS for tracking

(M) FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
MSFC ELO 17.5 95.0 128.6 74.6 17 0.6
KSC GO 4.9 19.6 21.4 23.6 12.5 0
TV 0 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 0
34
ARES I-1 Independent Cost Review

• Kelley Cyr
• Constellation Cost Estimating Team

35
ARES I-1 Independent Cost Review

• The Constellation Cost Estimating Team performed
  an independent cost review of the project
  estimates for ARES I-1 (aka ADFT-0)
• The review was performed by experienced cost
  estimators at MSFC and KSC,
• The results were reviewed by the MSFC Engineering
  Cost Office Manager and the Cx Cost Team Lead
• The review was conducted in accordance with the
  IPAO Cost Estimate Sufficiency Review Checklist
  in the NASA Cost Estimating Handbook
• In addition, the team did a cost comparison and
  cost risk analysis for the ARES I-1 Flight Test
  Vehicle

36
Sufficiency Review

• This is a checklist to review project office cost
  estimates for reasonableness, completeness,
  consistency, and compliance with generally
  accepted estimating processes.
• The end result of the sufficiency review will
  provide decision makers with an assessment of the
  quality of the cost estimate.
• In general, the ARES I-1 passed the review with
  the following exceptions
• CLV Flight Test Article
• Estimates presented cannot be properly verified
  due to inadequate historic analogous data to use
  as reference.
• Ground Operations
• Should additional test requirements or hardware
  capabilities be imposed, the Ares I-1 budget
  estimates will have to be readdressed.
• The budget estimates will have to be readdressed
  should external constraints, such as those from
  Space Shuttle Program, change.
• This would include excursions from the current
  Space Shuttle launch manifest that could affect
  when Constellation assumes responsibility or is
  provided access to certain KSC facilities, such
  as LC-39 Pad B.
• There are no reserves in the Project budget
  estimates.

37
Ares I-1a and -1b BURDeterministic Cost Values
38
Cost Comparison Ares I-1, X-33, X-34
39
Quantifying Risk

• Utilized Tecolote triangle risk approach
• Low bound assumed 10th percentile
• High bound assumed 90th percentile
• Each major WBS element was evaluated and assigned
  a degree of risk

Data is derived from the most recent draft
document of the AFCAA CRH
WBS Risk Rationale
PPC/Ops 1 small fte/ level of effort
Veh. Int. 2 first time through on this type proj/ but x-43 exp
SMA 1 small fte/ level of effort/ non man flt
First Stage 3 existing hdw, metallic struc req minor dev/ repackage of av
Second Stage 2 sim cg/ mass - not flt, but 1st time for grc
CM/LAS 2 sim cg/ mass - not flt, but 1st time for grc
RCS 3 using existing systems, but integrated in new modular ways
Avionics 4 using existing systems, but integrated in new modular ways, new software based on flt control algorithms being dev. for clv
40
Correlation

• Correlation matrix was developed to capture cost
  interdependencies between Ares-I major WBS
  elements

41
Results

• Monte Carlo simulation was performed to develop
  Ares-I s-curve
• Deterministic cost estimate of 340M falls around
  the 25th percentile
• Reserve policy, to reach 70th percentile, will
  require 100M (30 reserve)

42

• Backup

43
Total Costs2 Identical Flights
As presented at 5/16/06
2nd flight D
1st flight
Total

• Vehicle 221.7 102.4 324.1
• 1st stage 30.5
• U/S 29.7
• CEV/LAS 21.6
• RCS 23.0
• Avionics 78.6
• SEI PM 34.6
• Ops Recovery 3.7
• Ground 69.5 12.5 82.0
• Facilities 42.0
• Operations 27.5
• Total Cost 291.2 114.9
  406.1

2 flight Cost Phasing
(M) FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Total
CLV 23.5 75.2 84.0 33.2 5.8 - 221.7
CLV 2nd flight 0.9 8.4 26.1 39.9 25.0 2.1 102.4
KSC 4.9 19.6 21.4 23.6 12.5 - 82.0
Total 29.3 103.2 131.5 96.7 43.3 2.1 406.1
44
Ares I-1r Trace May 16th to BUR
45
Total Cost Trace May 16th to BUR