Human Exploration Framework Team Presentation
1 like506 views
The NASA HEFT Phase I Closeout Steering Council presented key findings including the development of an investment portfolio for human exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), recommending a balance between new technology and operational programs. The analysis suggests initiating the development of a 100 ton heavy lift vehicle while leveraging existing resources and focusing on solar electric propulsion technology to enhance mission flexibility and reduce costs. Additionally, it highlights the need for core process improvements within NASA to effectively implement the recommended strategies and achieve future exploration goals.
Human Exploration Framework Team Presentation
- 1. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on HEFT Phase I Closeout Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 2. Agenda Summary / Key Findings Steve Altemus DRM Review Kent Joosten Technology Feed Forward and Gaps Chris Culbert Launch Vehicle Angelia Walker Crewed SpacecraN Steve Labbe Cost Study History Rita Willcoxon Phase I Summary & Conclusions Steve Altemus TransiQon to Phase II John Olson Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 2
- 3. Summary of Phase I Developed an investment porTolio that strikes a balance of new developments, technology, and operaQonal programs with an eye towards a new way of exploring. Created a point of departure DRM that is flexible and can evolve over Qme to support mulQple desQnaQons with the idenQfied systems. IdenQfied a minimum subset of elements needed to conduct earlier beyond LEO missions. Infused key technology developments that should begin in earnest and idenQfied gaps which should help inform addiQonal technology prioriQzaQon over and above the NEO focused DRM. Costed the DRM using tradiQonal cosQng methodologies. Determined alternaQve development opQons are required to address the cost and schedule shorTalls. Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 3
- 4. RecommendaQons In order to close on affordability and shorten Launch Vehicle the development cycle, NASA must change its • Ini#ate development of a evolvable moderate SSP‐ tradiQonal approach to human space systems derived in‐line HLV 100 t class in FY2011 acquisiQon and development Crewed SpacecraN Development Path • Develop an Orion‐derived direct return vehicle and in‐house developed Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on • Balance large tradi#onal contrac#ng prac#ces with Vehicle fixed price or cost challenges coupled with in‐house development • Do not develop a dedicated ISS ERV • Use the exis#ng workforce, infrastructure, and • Further trade CTV func#onality and HLLV crew ra#ng contracts where possible costs against Commercial Crew u#liza#on for explora#on • Leverage civil servant workforce to do leading edge development work Ground ops processing and launch AlternaQve Development Approaches infrastructure • Take advantage of exis#ng resources to ini#ate the • Ini#ate ground ops system development consistent development and help reduce upfront costs with spacecraW and launch vehicle development - Launch Vehicle Core Stage Technology Development - Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on Vehicle • Focus technology development on near term - In Space Propulsion explora#on goals (NEO by 2025) – Solar Electric Propulsion Freighter • Revise investments in FTD, XPRM, HLPT, ETDD, and – Cryo Propulsion Stage / Upper Stage HRP and others to align with the advanced systems - Deep Space Habita#on capabili#es iden#fied in the framework • Re‐phase technology investments to support the defined human explora#on strategy, mission and architecture Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 4
- 5. DRM IntroducQon Previous HEFT DRM analyses helped draw conclusions regarding system requirements for the NEO missions examined • In‐space propulsion technology advances and high system reusability did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 1) • Commercial on‐orbit refueling did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 2). Commercial launch rate available for explora#on missions significantly limited by costs of infrastructure expansion. “Hybrid” DRM analysis (“DRM 4”) presented to Steering Council 17 August. AddiQonal analysis performed to assess: • “Balanced” HLLV/Commercial launchers • Impacts of “moderate” HLLV capacity • Impacts of dele#on of solar electric propulsion (SEP) technology/system • Qualita#ve assessment of SEP Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 5
- 6. Concept of OperaQons (NEO Crewed Missions, 100 t HLLV) NEO 30d at NEO MMSEV continues operations at NEO 159d Transit 193d Transit SEP #1 EP Module Staging Location of Dock All Elements SEP #2 is Target Dependent CPS#1 E-M L1 DSH 339d Transit 339d Transit 4d Transit SEP #2 CPS#2 LEO 407 km x 407 km CTV CTV w/Crew CTV SM SEP #1 DSH MMSEV MMSEV OR SEP #2 CPS #1 EP Module CPS #2 CPS #2 EDL Kick stage Commercial Crew HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t EARTH CREW LAUNCH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 6
- 7. In‐Space Mission Elements for DRM 4 Solar Electric Cryogenic Propulsion Propulsion Stage Crew Transfer MulQ Mission (SEP) Space Deep Space (CPS) Vehicle Electric ExploraQon Habitat (CTV) Propulsion Vehicle (DSH) Kick Module (MMSEV) (EPM) Stage Mass (kg) ** 13,500 6,700 23,600 6,300 12,600 10,600 2,900 4.57 (max Diameter (m) 5.2 4.5 1.9 7.5 5.75 (stowed) 5.75 (stowed) stowed) Length (m) 4.2 6.8 7.7* 3 12.3 9 5.1 Pressurized Vol. (m3) 18.4 12 115 n/a n/a n/a n/a NOTES: • Elements Not To Scale • * Habitat length with adapters: 9.8 m • ** Inert mass shown for CPS, SEP and EPM Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 7
- 8. Systems Extensibility/EvoluQon for Other DesQnaQons HEO/GEO NEO Lunar Orbit Lunar Surface* Phobos/Deimos Mars* CTV CTV CTV+ CTV+ CTV+ CTV+ HLLV HLLV HLLV HLLV HLLV HLLV+ x1 x3 x1 x2 +xN xN Rover Cab, Rover Cab, MMSEV MMSEV MMSEV Ascent Cab? Ascent Cab? CPS CPS CPS CPSx2 CPSxN CPSxN Surface Transit Surface Transit Hab, HAB Hab Hab+ Transit Hab+ SEP SEP+, NEP or NEP * AddiEonal systems required for these desEnaEons Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 8
- 9. Campaign Profile DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew NEO HEO (No Crew) HEO E‐M L1 E‐M L1 RoboQc RoboQc Precursor Precursor Inflatable DSH Demo Test CPS Flagship Flight L1 mission w/ ~55 t Full Scale SEP 30 kWe Flagship Deployment of Opportunity Payloads MMSEV CTV Test at ISS w/ High‐Speed CTV Entry Commercial Crew Ellip#cal Reenty Test Test to NEO HLLV Flight to HEO to E‐M L1 (via E‐M L1) NEO Mission Commercial Crew / Cargo ConOps 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Indicates flight to LEO 9 10 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 9
- 10. Integrated Cost EsQmates DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew & CTV‐E Prime to RepresentaQve NEO $20,000 Program Integra#on Robo#cs Precursor $18,000 CTV CPS MMSEV $16,000 DSH SEP Commercial Crew Development $14,000 Commercial HLLV Mission Opera#ons $12,000 Ground Opera#ons and Infrastructure Development $ in Millions $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Years Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 10
- 11. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on DRM Review Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 12. IntroducQon Previous HEFT DRM analyses helped draw conclusions regarding system requirements for the NEO missions examined • In‐space propulsion technology advances and high system reusability did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 1) • Commercial on‐orbit refueling did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 2). Commercial launch rate available for explora#on missions significantly limited by costs of infrastructure expansion. “Hybrid” DRM analysis (“DRM 4”) presented to Steering Council 17 August. AddiQonal analysis performed to assess: • “Balanced” HLLV/Commercial launchers • Impacts of “moderate” HLLV capacity • Impacts of dele#on of solar electric propulsion (SEP) technology/system • Qualita#ve assessment of SEP Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 12
- 13. Concept of OperaQons (NEO Crewed Missions, 100 t HLLV) NEO 30d at NEO MMSEV continues operations at NEO 159d Transit 193d Transit SEP #1 EP Module Staging Location of Dock All Elements SEP #2 is Target Dependent CPS#1 E-M L1 DSH 339d Transit 339d Transit 4d Transit SEP #2 CPS#2 LEO 407 km x 407 km CTV CTV w/Crew CTV SM SEP #1 DSH MMSEV MMSEV OR SEP #2 CPS #1 EDL EP Module Results in CPS #2 CPS #2 Kick stage CxP‐like “1.5 launch” Commercial Crew architecture along with Low‐boiloff associated HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t CPS may issues not be required EARTH CREW LAUNCH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 13
- 14. Campaign Profile DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew NEO HEO (No Crew) HEO E‐M L1 E‐M L1 RoboQc RoboQc Precursor Precursor Inflatable DSH Demo Test CPS Flagship Flight L1 mission w/ ~55 t Full Scale SEP 30 kWe Flagship Deployment of Opportunity Payloads MMSEV CTV Test at ISS w/ High‐Speed CTV Entry Commercial Crew Ellip#cal Reenty Test Test to NEO HLLV Flight to HEO to E‐M L1 (via E‐M L1) NEO Mission Commercial Crew / Cargo ConOps 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Indicates flight to LEO 9 10 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 14
- 15. DRM Hybrid: Chemical/SEP 100 t HLLV Mass AllocaQon 100 t HLLV Elements are not to scale Elephant stands and element adapters will use unallocated mass Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 15
- 16. Concept of OperaQons (NEO Crewed Missions, 70 t HLLV) NEO L1 and beyond ops same as 100t op#on Dock All Elements EPM CPS #2 SEP #1 E-M L1 339d Transit SEP#2 transfers DSH to L1 339d Transit Kick Stage Kick Stage SEP#1 transfers Kick Stage 4d Transit CPS #1 to L1 LEO 407 km x 407 km Both stacks leave CPS #1 LEO at the same time OR CPS #2 CTV CTV DSH SEP #2 MMSEV MMSEV SEP #1 EPM Kick Stage Could Potentially Kick Stage Kick Stage Kick Stage Replace One HLLV Commercial Lanch Crew HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t EARTH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 16
- 17. DRM Hybrid: Chemical/SEP 70 t HLLV Mass AllocaQon 70 t HLLV HLLV 2 has negaQve unallocated mass (‐1.15t) Elements are not to scale Elephant stands and element adapters will use unallocated mass Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 17
- 18. Comparison of Crew Launches 70t 75t 85t 100t Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 18
- 19. Concept of OperaQons 100 t HLLV – All Chemical In‐Space Propulsion 30d at NEO NEO MMSEV Cryo Stage #4 Cryo Stage #5 211d Transit 126d Transit Kick Stage Cryo Stage #3 Dock All Elements DSH Cryo Stage #2 LEO Cryo Stage #1 CTV-AE CTV-AE CTV SM DSH DSH 5X Cryo Stages OR MMSEV MMSEV EDL Kick stage 5 X HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t Elements are not to scale EARTH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 19
- 20. Risk Assessment Comparisons Area SEP (100 t) SEP (70 t) Chem (100 t) Chem (70 t) # of Unique Elements 7 7 5 5 Total # of Elements 9 11 9 12 # Launches (HLLV) 3 5 6 9 # AR&Ds 8 9 9 12 # of Undocks 10 14 10 13 # Propellant Transfers 0 0 0 0 Chemical Prop Burns 7 9 14 19 Mission Life#me 841 Days 930 Days 821 Days 1091 Days Crew Time 394 Days 394 Days 371 Days 371 Days IMLEO Mass (t) 254 262 537 591 NEO Arrival Stack Mass (t) 57 57 109 121 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 20
- 21. Solar Electric Propulsion Benefits & Highlights Baseline Slope = 7.29 13.5t CTV Slope = 4.33 “Gear” RaQo for SEP missions significantly beper than chemical stages Mission flexibility – departure/return windows SEP affords more “graceful”, less catastrophic propulsion system failure modes SubstanQal power available at desQnaQon and during coast periods Reusable architecture potenQal Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 21
- 22. DRM Assessment Summary ObservaQons • Balanced HLLV/Commercial launchers – Reasonable balance of commercial and government launches achievable through robo#c precursors, flagships and full‐scale demos • Impacts of moderate HLLV capacity – 100 t class launcher allows single launch of systems needed for crewed flight to HEO, reduces launches needed for NEO by ~50% • Impacts of solar electric propulsion – SEP architecture reduces by half the mass to LEO and decreases sensi#vity to mass growth by ~60% • QualitaQve assessment of SEP – offers unique mission flexibility, reduc#on in risk and extensibility to more ambi#ous explora#on missions Top PrioriQes Looking Forward • Perform func#onality trades amongst architecture elements, par#cularly CTV/MMSEV/Hab • Understand CTV func#onality and rela#onship to Commercial Crew through opera#onal concept analysis including con#ngencies • Trade reusability of key transporta#on/habita#on elements • Perform campaign analysis – other missions of interest and how well DRM elements and technologies play (e.g., CPS evolu#on to HLLV upper stage, or vice versa) • Perform boroms‐up element design, layout and packaging for SEP, MMSEV and Hab including radia#on protec#on strategies Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 22
- 23. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Technology Feed Forward and Gaps Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 24. Summary Human missions to NEOs require a focused technology investment porTolio • The agency is already inves#ng in every area needed to enable this class of mission, but emphasis must be put in the right areas • Latest DRM analysis adds Solar Electric Propulsion to other areas of early investment emphasis As definiQon of the mission profile matures and our understanding of the deep space environment improves, addiQonal technology needs may be idenQfied (e.g. radiaQon protecQon for hardware) Core improvements in the way NASA has always done business are needed in areas such as logisQcs management, hardware supportability, soNware development, and mission operaQons with limited ground support. While these improvements may not be directly technology related, they are criQcal to implemenQng the defined DRM. Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 24
- 25. Technology Progress towards other DesQnaQons HEFT DRM 4 DRM 4 Other Crew DesQnaQon Lunar Surface (Long Technology Area Near‐Earth Objects EM‐L1 / Lunar Orbit Mars Orbit Dur.) Mars Surface Propulsion Technologies Heavy LiN Propulsion Technology ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! In‐Space Chemical Propulsion ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! ! High Efficiency In‐Space Propulsion ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Cryogenic Fluid Management (e.g. zero boil off) ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Cryogenic Fluid Transfer ! ! ! ! ! Technologies for Human Health & HabitaQon Life Support and HabitaQon ˜! ˜! ! ! ! ExploraQon Medical Capability ˜! ˜! ! ! ! Space RadiaQon ProtecQon ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Human Health and Countermeasures ˜! ˜! ! ! ! Behavioral Health and Performance ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Space Human Factors & Habitability ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Symbol Technology development complete ˜! Technology Required for this des#na#on Addi#onal tech. dev. required ! Technology is applicable to this des#na#on Technology not developed ! Not Applicable Need more data NASAWATCH.COM 25
- 26. Technology Progress towards other DesQnaQons (cont’d) HEFT DRM 4 DRM 4 Other Crew DesQnaQon Lunar Surface (Long Technology Area Near‐Earth Objects EM‐L1 / Lunar Orbit Mars Orbit Dur.) Mars Surface Power Technologies High Efficiency Space Power Storage ˜! ˜! ! ! ! High Power Space Electrical Pwr GeneraQon ˜! ˜! ! ! ! Entry Descent & Landing Technologies High Speed Earth re‐entry (> 11 km/s) ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Aeroshell & Aerocapture ! ! ! ! ! Precision Landing ! ! ! ! ! EVA & RoboQcs Technologies EVA Technology ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Human ExploraQon TeleroboQcs ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! ! Human RoboQc Systems ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Surface Mobility ! ! ! ! ! Symbol Technology development complete ˜! Technology Required for this des#na#on Addi#onal tech. dev. required ! Technology is applicable to this des#na#on Technology not developed ! Not Applicable Need more data NASAWATCH.COM 26
- 27. Technology Progress towards other DesQnaQons (cont’d) HEFT DRM 4 DRM 4 Other Crew DesQnaQon Lunar Surface (Long Technology Area Near‐Earth Objects EM‐L1 / Lunar Orbit Mars Orbit Dur.) Mars Surface SoNware & Electronic Technologies Autonomous Systems ! ! ! ! ! Advanced Avionics/SoNware ! ! ! ! ! Advanced Nav/Comm ! ! ! ! ! Other Technologies Advanced Thermal Control & ProtecQon Systems ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Automated Rendezvous and Docking ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! Supportability & LogisQcs ! ! ! ! ! Lightweight Materials & Structures ! ! ! ! ! Environment MiQgaQon (e.g.Dust) ! ! ! ! ! In‐Situ Resource UQlizaQon ! ! ! ! ! Symbol Technology development complete ˜! Technology Required for this des#na#on Addi#onal tech. dev. required ! Technology is applicable to this des#na#on Technology not developed ! Not Applicable Need more data NASAWATCH.COM 27
- 28. Extensibility of Solar Electric Propulsion Stage Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on 1,000 kWe + Nuclear Stage • ETDD thruster cluster or advanced high power thruster Technology Demonstration Complexity and Available Power • Robo#c to Mars MegaWaO‐Class Fast‐Transit SpacecraR • Human Cargo / Precursor • Extensible for Surface Power TRL9 SEP Stage 90 kW FTD‐1 SEP Stage/ARDV NEXT Ion + 30 kWe FAST Array A Bridge Technology for ESMD Human OperaNons • NASA SMD Science • DoD Opera#onal Missions 300 kWe SEP Stage ETDD Advanced EP Thruster + 90 kWe TRL9 SEP Stage 30 kW • Cargo/Crew to NEO • Reusable Orbital Transfer • Lunar Cargo Demonstrate SpacecraO buses with increasing power & decreasing specific mass to enable advanced electric and plasma propulsion spacecraO that will decrease trip Nmes to Mars and beyond. Each demonstraNon spacecraO bus has immediate applicaNon & payoff to other mission objecNves. NEP power system technologies are extensible to surface power. State‐of‐Art • < 3 kWe devices • GEOCOM auxiliary propulsion • Planetary science (DS1, Dawn) 2015 2020 2025 NASAWATCH.COM Beyond ‐>
- 29. Key ObservaQons No wasted technology investments • Every technology needed to enable a human NEO mission also is needed for other human des#na#ons There are technologies needed for other desQnaQons NOT needed for a human NEO mission; technology gaps Gap technologies that represent unique NASA needs will require the agency to sustain key core competencies for future missions • Precision landing • Aeroshell/aerocapture • Space Nuclear Power • ISRU Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 29
- 30. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Launch Vehicle Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 31. Launch Vehicle Issue RecommendaQon • An HLV is central to any robust human explora#on • Accelerate the HLV decision – moderate HLV program • Ini#ate a Shurle‐derived inline HLV Program • Delaying a decision on HLV configura#on and beginning in FY2011 requirements to 2015 limits NASA’s op#ons and - Ini#al 90 – 100 t range hampers planning - Defer upper stage to Block II • There is no benefit to delaying work on the HLV, no technology needed for capability development Note: An RP‐based HLV (100‐120 t) and a replacement for the - Industry RFI Response (Russian) RD‐180 is higher cost to NASA and therefore Risk if unresolved requires supplemental funding from DoD to offset increased • NASA will lose an opportunity to build from the costs exis#ng flight‐proven systems • Losing the capability to build an SSP‐derived HLV will require the development of new manufacturing, processing, and launch infrastructure at addi#onal cost and schedule risk. 33. 0' 0 3 3 ø ø 0 3 3 ø ' . ' . 12.5' ø Key Trade 27.5’ Inline 33’ Inline 33’ RP Geometry Shurle ET diameter Saturn V heritage 33’ diameter Saturn V heritage 33’ diameter Booster 4 or 5 segment PBAN booster, evolvable to HTPB 5 segment PBAN booster, evolvable to HTPB 1.25 m lbf RP engines on boosters SSME (RS‐25D) transi#oning to 1.25 m lbf thrust class LOX/RP‐1 Core Stage Engine RS‐68B evolvable to RS‐68B E/O RS‐25E engine Upper Stage Engine RL10A4‐3 J‐2X J‐2X‐285 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 31
- 32. Moderate HLV OpQons –70 t to 100 t Comparison >130 t >70 t ~100 t US Engine Trade Payload Trade Op#ons Op#ons • 10 m shroud (baseline) Upper Stage evolved • RS‐25E • 8.4 m shroud from CPS • J‐2X • Orion Crew Capable • NGE (RL10 replacement) Evolves OR to 5 seg PBAN SRB to Composite HTPB SRBs Ini#al Capability > 70 t Ini#al Capability ~100 t Ul#mate Capability >130 t 4 Segment PBAN SRBs 5 Segment PBAN SRBs 5 Segment HTPB Composite SRBs 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 3 RS‐25D 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 5 RS‐25D 27.5’ dia Core Stage using RS‐25E No Upper Stage No Upper Stage NASAWATCH.COM Upper Stage evolved from CPS
- 33. EvoluQon OpQons 4/3 (70 t) Vehicle EvoluQon • 76 t with 4/3 vehicle in cargo configura#on • 85 t capability with 4/3 vehicle and a RS‐25 D Upper Stage • ~105 t capability with 4/3 vehicle, US, and HPTB/Composite case SRB’s • Performance analysts' recommenda#on - 1st stage under‐thrusted for super heavy liW - Add another pair of 4 segment boosters 5/5 (100 t) Vehicle EvoluQon • 101 t with 5/5 vehicle in cargo configura#on • 127 t with RS‐25 US • >140 t with RS‐25 US and HPTB/composite case SRB’s StarNng with 3 engine core and 4 segment motors requires both core and motor evoluNon to achieve > 130 t Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 33
- 34. Cost Concept Comparison of Major Discriminators Cost through FY17 ‐ $B 100 t 70 t ATP to First Flight 7.5 years 7 years Core Stage 4.5 4.8 (DDT&E + Produc#on) RS‐25D Sustaining 0.6 0.8 RS‐25E 0.7 0 (DDT&E + Produc#on) 4 Segment SRB Sustaining 0 2.8 5 Segment SRB 3.0 0 (DDT&E + Produc#on) First Flight w/RS‐25E’s FY23 FY25 Total Cost thru FY17* 11.6 11.0 *Costs do not include reserves & FTEs, and do not fully fund to the first test flight Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 34
- 35. Moderate HLV Vehicle Discriminators 70 t vs. 100 t 70 t 100 t 4 Segment PBAN SRBs 5 Segment PBAN SRBs 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 3 RS‐25D 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 5 RS‐25D No Upper Stage No Upper Stage RS‐25E development may be deferred RS‐25E development required up‐front 5 flights with 15 RS 25‐D units 3 flights with 15 RS 25‐D units NEO mission flight rate and schedule NEO mission flight rate and schedule determines produc#on limits determines produc#on limits • 15 engines per NEO mission (DRM 4) • 15 engines per NEO mission (DRM 4) • Produc#on rates of 20/yr achievable • Produc#on rates of 20/yr achievable 4 segment motors (RSRM) 5 segment motors (RSRMV) • Obsolescence issues (asbestos) may need • Obsolescence not an issue; 5 motors to be addressed – possible delta qual of planned for qual, may be less 1‐5 addi#onal motors • Heritage hardware assessed to new • Would require new avionics (could use environments and loads RSRMV avionics) • Parachutes challenges (in work) ATP to first‐flight – 6 years • New avionics suites (in work) ATP to first‐flight – 6.5 years MPS more complex (DDT&E forward work) • May lead to more MPTA tes#ng Base hea#ng more challenging (DDT&E forward work) NASAWATCH.COM 35
- 36. Required Ground OperaQons ModificaQons for Any Shuple‐Derived HLV One fill + 2 scrub One total launch Current FSS height & MLP flame hole do load arempts arempt with not support either HLV configura#on. (3 arempts total) current sphere with current capacity sphere capacity (without 48 hr. (without 48 hr. replenishment) replenishment) Shurle 70 t HLV 100 t HLV Mods required for either HLV OpQon KSC Facility Large Cost Drivers: • New Tower for high‐eleva#on access • Manifest (flights per year, spacing, etc.) • New ML Base (similar cost to MLP mods) with Tower (driven by determines KSC Infrastructure rollout stabiliza#on and LV/spacecraW rollout purge requirements) • VAB plazorm mods to meet access requirements • Flight Hardware ConfiguraQon • Pad flame deflector mods (based on engine configura#on) • Reusable hardware increases • Structural reinforcement driven by tower, vehicle & ML base weight facility footprint • Pad, Pad Slope, Crawler, Crawlerway, VAB, etc. • Ship to Integrate Flight Hardware • Facili#es & GSE must be brought into compliance with current minimizes KSC facility footprint construc#on standards & codes (VAB life safety & fire suppression) • GHE recovery system may be required (out‐years) Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 36
- 37. Heavy LiN Launch Vehicle (HLLV) RecommendaQon IniQate a 100 t class Shuple‐derived moderate HLLV • Accommodates difficult NEO crewed missions with less risk • Defers Upper stage to Block II and evolve US from CPS • U#lizes experienced workforce • Hardware has demonstrated reliability and performance • More payload capability for the investment Further Launch Vehicle trades should be completed by HLPT Team at MSFC Perform a trade of the feasibility of Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) evoluQon to Upper Stage (HEFT Phase II) • Evolu#on of the CPS from the current Ares I Upper Stage design is feasible to evolve to an earth departure stage (EDS) with modest CFM requirements • CPS design could build on exis#ng elements of Ares I US for early demonstra#on • Extensibility for longer loiter required for CPS is feasible Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 37
- 38. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Crewed SpacecraN ‐ Revised Approach Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 39. Crewed SpacecraN/ERV – As presented July 13th Issue Risk if unresolved • HEFT assessments iden#fied a func#onal • Pursuing an ISS ERV diverts near term requirement for a crewed explora#on resources that could be berer aligned with spacecraW advancing human (beyond LEO) explora#on • Developing an Orion‐derived explora#on RecommendaQon vehicle • Switch Focus to develop an Orion‐derived - Provides a clear explora#on spacecraW focus exploraQon spacecraN using a block approach - Leverages CxP investment, maintaining - Do not develop a dedicated ISS ERV Agency momentum, and preserves prime contractor rela#onship • Development Path - Can yield an ISS ERV via Block development - Orion‐derived direct return vehicle and in‐ house developed exploraQon craN • No dedicated ISS ERV in any explora#on - Manage the Orion‐derived explora#on DRMs spacecraW to fit the available budget using - ERV development is a sub‐op#mum detour rigorous design‐to‐cost targets in the path to an explora#on spacecraW - Implement lean in‐house development of the - ERV development reduces available budget MMSEV for key systems and tech development by • Alterna#ve Development Path more than $2.0B - Orion block 2 vehicle - with airlock and robo#c elements Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 39
- 40. Crew Transfer Vehicle FuncQonality ConsideraQons Hybridized DRM‐4 uQlizes either an Ascent/Entry (CTV‐AE) or Entry only (CTV‐E) Extended Quiescent Period Propulsion System Reqs. ConQngency Abort Support Crew Support DuraQon Entry, Descent & Landing Ascent Aborts Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 40
- 41. Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) FuncQonality OpQons There are natural capability break points that suggest several CTV opQons • Future assessment to refine these is required to fully defined CTV func#onality CTV‐E: minimal EOM (only) funcQon • Does not provide support for (on‐orbit) con#ngency abort func#ons CTV‐AE: provides ascent/entry • Must include the Ascent Abort (LAS) capability/func#onality • Provides CM/SM crewed support (LEO to HEO / DSV sep thru EDL / Cont. Abort Reqs.) CTV‐E*: entry + (on orbit) conQngency abort funcQons • CTV‐E* is a reduc#on of system capability from CTV‐AE - Eliminates the Ascent Abort (LAS) capability/func#onality • Maintain SM func#onality to cover crewed support & con#ngency abort requirements Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 41
- 42. Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) OpQons – CapabiliQes CTV ConfiguraQon CTV‐E CTV‐E* CTV‐A/E Crew in CTV during ascent? No No Yes Ascent Abort (Pad to LEO) No No Yes No. of Crew ‐ Delivery of Crew to LEO / Return from 3‐4 3‐4 3‐4 beyond LEO Ascent/On‐orbit Crew Support (hrs) 0 / 0 0 / 216 12+ / 216 Crew Support For EDL & Recovery (hrs) 40 40 40 Quiescent Time (days) 400 400 400 Automated Rendezvous & Docking – AR&D TBD TBD Yes Main Propulsion delta‐V (m/s) <200 1500+ 1500+ Entry Speed for Entry Descent & Landing – EDL (km/s) <11.8 <11.8 <11.8 EDL & Recovery System (water landing) Yes Yes Yes RCS Control for EDL Yes Yes Yes ConQngency (In Space) Abort No Yes Yes Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 42
- 43. Crew Transfer Vehicle‐Entry (CTV‐E) FuncQonality ImplicaQons Minimum CTV‐E capability implies certain condiQons • All beyond LEO missions require CTV‐E, MMSEV & CPS + Comm. Crew launch • LEO to L1 crew support (~4 days) off‐loaded to the MMSEV • No stand alone in‐space con#ngency abort support (insufficient crew support Eme) - Requires combina#on with MMSEV and CPS AddiQonal implicaQons • Does not support early beyond LEO mission w/CTV only (insufficient crew support Eme, insufficient Delta‐V) • Places Commercial Crew in Cri#cal Path for explora#on missions • CTV‐E is not on path to provide Commercial Crew alterna#ve Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 43
- 44. Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) RecommendaQon Open the trade on the CTV‐E funcQonality design and development approach • Op#mize the CTV‐E* performance and func#onality alloca#on for DRM 4 - Understand CTV capabili#es needed through opera#onal concept analysis including con#ngencies - In‐depth trades must be performed before CTV capabili#es are established – Preliminary capability assessment is approximately “Orion (Lunar) – LAS” Therefore, consider the CTV‐E* approach as an updated point of departure • Strengthens the on‐orbit con#ngency abort requirements support • Preserves an Agency op#on for Commercial Crew Alterna#ve • Would yield “early” beyond LEO flight capability when combined w/HLV & CPS HEFT follow on acQvity to establish best acquisiQon/development approach • Stretched development cycles (consistent w/HEFT manifest) results in sub‐op#mal CTV cost es#mates – further exacerbated when combined with exis#ng contract • HEFT Phase 2 must address the prac#cal programma#c aspects for CTV‐E* development Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 44
- 45. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Cost Study History ExecuQve Summary Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 46. IntroducQon Created 16 scenarios based on DRM team products Formed catalog of capabiliQes EsQmated costs for each capability • Used analogies and models for costs • IdenQfied technology developments required • Used system and technology experts • Used esQmates from Launch Services Program (LSP) for commercial launches • Performed in‐family check of similar historical capabiliQes Developed schedules with cost phasing Provided data to Manifest team to create missions Developed sandcharts Supported mulQple cost reviews • Two with HEFT Red team • Independent cost consultant • SSP and CxP programs and projects Iterated viable scenarios to fit potenQal budget bogey Determined that Strategy 3, DRM 2 had most potenQal to fit within the budget Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 46
- 47. Budget Bogey for HEFT Analysis (June 23, 2010) Based on FY11 President’s Budget, assume OMB budget escalaQon beyond FY15 Start with SOMD + ESMD + Space Technology Items removed to arrive at available for HEFT • Constella#on Closeout, por#on of Space Flight Support, ISS, Shurle, Space Technology Results in Available Budget for HEFT Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 47
- 48. Sandchart History DRM 2B Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 48
- 49. Revised HEFT Budget Bogey Line (August 15) “Original” Budget Bogey for HEFT Original 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Budget Bogey $2,782 $4,497 $5,177 $5,431 $5,526 $5,660 $5,801 $5,943 $6,085 $6,229 Proposed adjustments: Using exisQng contracts, $1.8 B for CxP closeout was added back into budget bogey Assumed Prap & Whitney J2‐X is $100K in FY11 Boeing Upper Stage close‐out costs were included in FY10 Program TerminaQon Liability (PTL) Stranded Human Space Flight costs removed in FY11 Soyuz or commercial crew rides costs removed between FY2016‐FY2020 Cost removed for addiQonal shuple flight in June 2011 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ConQnue $1,800 $600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contracts HSF ($400) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($799) ($800) ($800) ($800) ($800) to ISS SSP thru ($520) 6/11 “Revised” Budget Bogey for HEFT Revised 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Budget Bogey $3,662 $5,097 $5,177 $5,431 $5,526 $4,860 $5,001 $5,143 $5,285 $5,428 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 49
- 50. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on DRM 4 Cost Summary Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 51. Campaign Profile DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew NEO HEO (No Crew) HEO E‐M L1 E‐M L1 RoboQc RoboQc Precursor Precursor Inflatable DSH Demo Test CPS Flagship Flight L1 mission w/ ~55 t Full Scale SEP 30 kWe Flagship Deployment of Opportunity Payloads MMSEV CTV Test at ISS w/ High‐Speed CTV Entry Commercial Crew Ellip#cal Reenty Test Test to NEO HLLV Flight to HEO to E‐M L1 (via E‐M L1) NEO Mission Commercial Crew / Cargo ConOps 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Indicates flight to LEO 9 10 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 51
- 52. Integrated Cost EsQmates DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew & CTV‐E Prime to RepresentaQve NEO $20,000 Program Integra#on Robo#cs Precursor $18,000 CTV CPS MMSEV $16,000 DSH SEP Commercial Crew Development $14,000 Commercial HLLV Mission Opera#ons $12,000 Ground Opera#ons and Infrastructure Development $ in Millions $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Years Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 52
- 53. 2011‐2018 Cost EsQmates DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew & CTV‐E Prime to RepresentaQve NEO • RoboQc Precursor in 2018 • SEP 30 kWe test flight in 2017 • CPS Flagship in 2017 • Launch HLLV 100 t Test Flight • Commercial Crew Development Complete 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Program Integ $135 $250 $357 $376 $368 $373 $364 $368 RoboQcs Pre $0 $0 $0 $88 $115 $236 $364 $375 CTV‐E Prime $922 $949 $1,395 $1,774 $1,926 $1,760 $1,397 $802 CPS $0 $86 $233 $347 $507 $594 $419 $432 MMSEV $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $17 $211 $583 DSH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16 $121 SEP $0 $0 $0 $56 $115 $177 $161 $342 CCDEV $307 $1,265 $1,302 $1,005 $574 $0 $0 $0 Commercial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $607 $703 HLLV $913 $1,980 $2,780 $2,550 $2,136 $2,202 $2,507 $2,350 MO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $33 $34 GO & Infrastr $390 $999 $1,203 $1,110 $992 $906 $652 $702 Total $2,667 $5,529 $7,269 $7,306 $6,735 $6,275 $6,732 $6,813 Delta $995 $(432) $(2,092) $(1,874) $(1,209) $(1,414) $(1,731) $(1,670) Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 53
- 54. 2019‐2026 Cost EsQmates DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew & CTV‐E Prime to RepresentaQve NEO • CTV‐ E flight test to ISS with launch on HLLV and with Crew launching on Commercial Crew in 2019 • RoboQc Precursor 2 in 2021 • SEP Full‐scale Development Test in 2022 on EELV • First test flight of CTV‐E and CPS in HEO in 2022 • Inflatable Hab LEO demo flight in 2024 on EELV • CTV‐E, CPS, and MMSEV HEO flight with crew launching on commercial crew in 2024 • SEP L‐1 flight in 2026 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Program Integ $407 $465 $517 $523 $531 $496 $485 $523 RoboQcs Pre $257 $132 $136 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CTV‐E Prime $256 $263 $542 $279 $287 $295 $304 $312 CPS $472 $473 $267 $84 $87 $89 $92 $94 MMSEV $796 $933 $1,008 $1,000 $557 $297 $153 $157 DSH $301 $449 $540 $526 $1,038 $1,127 $1,292 $1,215 SEP $976 $1,340 $1,663 $1,815 $1,819 $1,026 $458 $616 CCDEV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Commercial $0 $0 $340 $350 $451 $0 $382 $490 HLLV $2,413 $2,527 $2,595 $2,677 $2,575 $2,724 $2,916 $3,109 MO $35 $83 $146 $289 $317 $293 $185 $223 GO & Infrastr $658 $656 $674 $694 $715 $734 $756 $779 Total $6,570 $7,321 $8,429 $8,237 $8,376 $7,082 $7,023 $7,518 Delta $(1,285) $(1,893) $ (2,057) $ (1,720) $(1,713) $(272) $(65) $(411) Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 54
- 55. 2027‐2031 Cost EsQmates DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew & CTV‐E Prime to RepresentaQve NEO • L‐1 Mission of CTV‐E, CPS, MMSEV with Crew launching on Commercial Crew in 2027 • First crewed mission to a NEO in 2031 • Sequence of three heavy launches starQng in 2029 that posiQon all the hardware and crew in HEO 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Program Integ $532 $567 $549 $510 $491 RoboQcs Pre $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CTV‐E Prime $320 $329 $338 $347 $356 CPS $97 $99 $102 $105 $107 MMSEV $81 $83 $85 $174 $179 DSH $1,189 $901 $656 $217 $29 SEP $633 $1,300 $1,335 $685 $358 CCDEV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Commercial $0 $0 $0 $0 $560 HLLV $3,079 $3,054 $2,940 $2,947 $2,947 MO $298 $322 $191 $349 $358 GO & Infrastr $802 $826 $851 $851 $851 Total $7,031 $7,482 $7,046 $6,186 $6,237 Delta $227 $(72) $ 519 $1,538 $ 1,649 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 55
- 56. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Phase I Summary & Conclusions Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 57. Phase 1 RecommendaQons In order to close on affordability and shorten Launch Vehicle the development cycle, NASA must change its • Ini#ate development of a evolvable moderate SSP‐ tradiQonal approach to human space systems derived in‐line HLV 100 t class in FY2011 acquisiQon and development Crewed SpacecraN Development Path • Develop an Orion‐derived direct return vehicle and in‐house developed Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on • Balance large tradi#onal contrac#ng prac#ces with Vehicle fixed price or cost challenges coupled with in‐house development • Do not develop a dedicated ISS ERV • Use the exis#ng workforce, infrastructure, and • Further trade CTV func#onality and HLLV crew ra#ng contracts where possible against Commercial Crew u#liza#on for explora#on • Leverage civil servant workforce to do leading edge Ground ops processing and launch development work infrastructure AlternaQve Development Approaches • Ini#ate ground ops system development consistent • Take advantage of exis#ng resources to ini#ate the with spacecraW and launch vehicle development development and help reduce upfront costs Technology Development - Launch Vehicle Core Stage • Focus technology development on near term - Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on Vehicle explora#on goals (NEO by 2025) - Solar Electric Propulsion Freighter • Revise investments in FTD, XPRM, HLPT, ETDD, and - Cryo Propulsion Stage/Upper Stage HRP and others to align with the advanced systems - Deep Space Habitat capabili#es iden#fied in the framework • Re‐phase technology investments to support the defined human explora#on strategy, mission and architecture Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 57
- 58. DRM/Architecture – Key ObservaQons/RecommendaQons ObservaQons • Balanced HLLV/Commercial launchers – Reasonable balance of commercial and government launches achievable through robo#c precursors, flagships and full‐scale demos • Impacts of moderate HLLV capacity – 100 t class launcher allows single launch of systems needed for crewed flight to HEO, reduces launches needed for NEO by ~50% • Impacts of solar electric propulsion – SEP architecture reduces by half the mass to LEO and decreases sensi#vity to mass growth by ~60% • QualitaQve assessment of SEP – offers unique mission flexibility, reduc#on in risk and extensibility to more ambi#ous explora#on missions Top PrioriQes Looking Forward • Perform func#onality trades amongst architecture elements, par#cularly CTV/MMSEV/Hab • Understand CTV func#onality and rela#onship to Commercial Crew through opera#onal concept analysis including con#ngencies • Trade reusability of key transporta#on/habita#on elements • Perform campaign analysis – other missions of interest and how well DRM elements and technologies play (e.g., CPS evolu#on to HLLV upper stage, or vice versa) • Perform boroms‐up element design, layout and packaging for SEP, MMSEV and Hab including radia#on protec#on strategies Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 58
- 59. Technology ‐ Key ObservaQons/RecommendaQons ObservaQons • Human missions to NEOs require a focused technology investment porzolio • As defini#on of the mission profile matures and our understanding of the deep space environment improves, addi#onal technology needs may be iden#fied • There are technologies needed for other des#na#ons NOT needed for a human NEO mission – i.e., technology gaps • Gap technologies that represent unique NASA needs will require the agency to sustain key core competencies for future missions RecommendaQons • Focus technology development toward a NEO des#na#on • Revise investments in FTD, XPRM, HLPT, ETDD, and HRP and others to align with the advanced systems capabili#es iden#fied in the framework • Re‐phase technology investments to support the defined human explora#on strategy, mission and architecture Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 59
- 60. Launch Vehicle, SpacecraN, and Ground OperaQons ‐ RecommendaQons SpacecraN • Develop an Orion‐derived direct return vehicle and in‐house developed Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on Vehicle • Consider the CTV‐E* approach as an updated point of departure • Con#nue the trade on the CTV func#onality design and development approach • Further trade CTV func#onality and HLLV crew ra#ng against Commercial Crew u#liza#on for explora#on Launch Vehicle • Ini#ate development of a 100 t class Shurle‐derived moderate HLLV • Perform a trade of the feasibility of Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) evolu#on to Upper Stage • Any further Launch Vehicle trades should be completed by the implemen#ng program organiza#on Ground OperaQons • Ini#ate ground ops system development consistent with spacecraW and launch vehicle development • Ini#ate trades associate with major infrastructure cost drivers Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 60
- 61. Significant Integrated Trade Remaining How does USG ascent capability via CTV and HLV compare to Commercially provided ascent capability for exploraQon • Several Key Factors need to be evaluated - Performance, opera#onal complexity, affordability, schedule, stakeholder values, poli#cal landscape, Agency risk posture, HSF capabili#es, etc. Recommend Steering Council provide a relaQve weighQng of the relevant FOMs • HEFT 2 can develop the decision package for Steering Council/Agency review USG Human Rated Ascent Capability CTV CTV w/Crew • Single launch decreases LOM • Single launch to HEO mi#gates on orbit loiter MMSEV MMSEV and boil‐off requirement CPS #2 Commercial OR CPS #2 • Mission complexity reduced with no rendezvous and dock in LEO Crew • Single launch reduces GO launch infrastructure to a single launch capability HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t • Single Launch to HEO mi#gates launch window constraints Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 61
- 62. Affordability ‐ the most significant challenge moving forward In order to close on affordability and shorten the development cycle, NASA must change its tradiQonal approach to human space systems acquisiQon and development TradiQonal Development • Balance large tradi#onal contrac#ng prac#ces with fixed price or cost challenges coupled with in‐house development • Use the exis#ng workforce, infrastructure, and contracts where possible Adopt AlternaQve Development Approaches • Leverage civil servant workforce to do leading edge development work • Specifically, take advantage of exis#ng resources to ini#ate the development and help reduce upfront costs on the following element: - Launch Vehicle Core Stage - Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on Vehicle - Solar Electric Propulsion Freighter - Cryo Propulsion Stage/Upper Stage - Deep Space Habitat There are opportuniQes to address affordability in program/project formulaQon and planning • Levy lean development approaches and “design‐to‐cost” targets on implemen#ng Programs • Iden#fy and nego#ate interna#onal partner contribu#ons • Iden#fy and pursue domes#c partnerships Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 62
- 63. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on HEFT TransiQon to Phase II Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 64. HEFT Phase II: Driven by Agency Needs and Phase I Results Inputs: From Steering Comm: High‐level “Why?” + Key PrioriNes & AssumpNons HEFT Phase I Results 1. Refine FOMs and establish Architecture Level 0 Requirements 2. Perform Architecture and DRM performance refinement across all elements 3. Establish top‐level funcQonality across architectural elements, opQmizing interfaces, interoperability, and commonality where possible 4. Set Technology/Capability prioriQes, phasing & needed performance 5. Develop architecture element Level 1 requirements 6. Create a high‐level mulQ‐desQnaQon CONOPS for the architecture/systems 7. Address partnership opportuniQes and consideraQons Outputs: DraO Architecture Baseline and CONOPS including cost, schedule and performance Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 64
- 65. HEFT Phase II Key Tasks Support program implementaQon, budget, and alternaQve/skunkworks acquisiQon & dev planning efforts Hone strategic decision Qmelines, provide Qmely/acQonable recommendaQons, and track decisions Pervasive and Timely 2‐way CommunicaQon: • Brief HEFT Phase I results & collect feedback • Provide frequent, #mely, and direct communica#on with HEFT oversight elements, internal stakeholders, and broad community (external stakeholders); Use all mediums • Share progress and opportuni#es with NASA’s external stakeholders, including commercial, interna#onal and academic partners to foster advocacy, coopera#on, and collabora#on; • Vigorously pursue internal and external input Par#cipatory Explora#on Engagement and Refinement (PEER) Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 65
- 66. HEFT Phase II ImplementaQon Plans Maintains the general elements and structure of HEFT • Cross‐agency direct par#cipa#on (MDs, HQ elements, Centers, Programs) • Leverages Engineering Structure and Exper#se • ESMD (and SOMD) provides regular oversight and direc#on: All final decisions and documenta#on approved at Administrator level with regular repor#ng to the SMC • Steering Commiree includes Current makeup + 4 Ops Ctr Dirs, Provides regular review • Integra#on Team: Each member leads a sub‐team, regular briefings • Sub‐teams: Integrated System Analysis / DRM, Ops / Infrastructure, Partnerships, Communica#ons, Crew Vehicle (CV), Launch Vehicle (LV), In‐space (IS), Tech Dev (TD) and Cost • Red / Independent Review Team & Consultants Team • Located in, and funded by ESMD, but Agency func#on for HSF Explora#on Near Term Forward Schedule • HEFT Phase 1 Final Summary outbriefs following Steering Commiree Mee#ng on 9/02/10 - Strategic Context and Top Outcomes from HEFT Phase I (Key Decisions, Trades, Results) - SMC/WH/Congress briefings soonest for concurrence with Phase I results/Phase II plans • Ini#al 3 month period of focused surge effort, then smaller, sustained long‐term refinement work NoQonal Phase 2 Schedule: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 – Wed, 8 Dec 2010 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 66
- 67. RelaQonship Diagram HEFT ESMD Programs Architecture Formulation and Process Implementation Steering ESMD Committee Architecture: NGOs, Cost, Architecture: Destinations, Budget, Other Implementation Schedule, DRMs, Constraints, Plans, Program Constraints, Priorities, Oversight Execution Other priorities Roadmaps HEFT Program Requirements, Formulation/Study/ Integration Functionality, Phasing, Priorities Team Program Teams Implementation Plans, Including Brokes/Issues Why? Where? What? When? How? Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 67
- 68. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Backup NASAWATCH.COM
- 69. DRM 2B Cost Summary Constant FY10 Dollars IOC costs Unit Cost % Applied for Capability $ in Million $ in Million Uncertainty Commercial Crew Development $4,100 N/A N/A Commercial Crew Launch Vehicle N/A $313 25% Commercial Cargo Launch Vehicle Atlas AV501 Moderate N/A $200 25% Commercial Cargo Launch Vehicle Delta IV N/A $424 25% 100 mt HLLV 27.5 ' SSP Derived In line w/out Upper Stage with 5 SSME $17,400 $1,860 25% Ground Infrastructure $7,000 $500 25% 70 mt HLLV 27.5 ' SSP Derived In line w/out Upper Stage with 3 SSME $14,300 $1,600 25% HLLV 33 ' RP Core* $17,700 $1,600 25% Cryo Propulsion Stage (CPS) Medium $3,200 $175 35% CPS Heavy (if built in parallel with CPS Medium) $2,500 $316 35% LEO Tug* $1,800 $450 35% Propellant Resupply Module (PRM) $191 $191 35% Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) $7,000 $1,500 25% Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP)* $11,100 N/A N/A Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP)* $19,000 N/A 35% MMSEV In House $3,800 $210 50% Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV)‐Entry $6,200 $400 25% CTV‐Entry Prime $7,900 $597 25% CTV‐Ascent/Entry $10,200 $840 25% Deep Space Habitat (DSH) $6,400 N/A 25% LogisQcs Module $525 $90 25% Mars Surface Systems $11,300 N/A 35% Mars Ascent Stage (MAS) $5,200 N/A 35% Mars EDL $11,100 N/A 35% BACK *lower fidelity es#mates Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 69
- 70. DRM 2B BACK Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 70
- 71. DRM 2B BACK Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 71
- 72. SSC Discriminators for 70 and 100 t vehicles No issues for engine tesQng Stage tesQng: relaQve to 70 t HLV, the 100 t HLV requires more extensive mods to SSC B‐2 • stage moun#ng • flame deflector robustness • propellant feedlines and valves, - per April 2010 assessment for 5‐engine MPTA type hozire series • Current ROM of $60 M No discriminators between vehicles – minor cost impact for B‐2 modificaNons (may be necessary in long term) Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 72
- 73. HEFT Phase II Overview HEFT Goal: Create an evolvable and flexible architecture for our Human Space Explora#on Enterprise that defines the strategy, capabiliNes, and technical plan NASA needs to send people to explore mulNple desNnaNons in the Solar System in an inspiring, safe, efficient, affordable, and sustainable way. HEFT Approach: ConNnue the HEFT process, evolving into a long term, permanent NASA ac#vity to support human space flight strategic architecture and support planning • For the next 3 months in HEFT Phase II, team will leverage the output of the first itera#on of the HEFT process and define/refine the HSF Explora#on Architecture • Outcome of the process will be an architecture that includes recommendaNons for Human Spaceflight elements, capabiliNes and mulN‐desNnaNon missions for 5, 10, 15, and 20 year horizons, with a steady cadence of bold firsts and Mars as the ulNmate desNnaNon HEFT Impact: Influence the FY11/12 and FY2013+ budget nego#a#on and alloca#on process • Provide an executable and credible strategic HSF architecture • Communicate a strategy that - Integrates all the moving parts and answers the ques#ons: “Why?”, “What?”, “Where?” and “When?” - Meets diverse stakeholder needs - Clarifies viable op#ons, implica#ons, and inter‐rela#onships Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 73
- 74. Detailed HEFT Deliverables (Phase II) Refined FOMS & Agency Level 0 requirements Key follow‐on trade studies and required forward work from HEFT Phase I Refined desQnaQons and compelling raQonale (where and why): • Assess Flexibility : Vehicle/payload capabili#es, des#na#on opportuni#es, mission adjustments • Assess Extensibility: Early missions; Mars orbit, Mars surface, other beyond NEO capabili#es Refined DRMs as part of a mulQ‐desQnaQon Architecture: • Breakdown of flight elements and top‐level func#onality • Op#mized interfaces, interface controls, commonality, and interoperability • Refined mission scenario and opera#ons defini#ons: launches, departure staging, in‐space integra#on, ac#vi#es/events, transits/dura#ons, des#na#on opera#on plans, and con#ngencies/robustness • Refined element defini#ons: systems, mass, power, performance, technologies • Refined systems, elements and technologies requirements; Phasing, TRL/IRL matura#on Level 1 architecture NGOs and requirements Refined technology and systems development plans: • Refine the needed technology development paths: tech dev, tes#ng, and demos • Technology and vehicle/element performance/demonstra#on targets & milestones • Phased technology, vehicle and element dev plans balancing affordability, efficiency & schedule Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 74
- 75. Detailed HEFT Deliverables (Phase II) ‐ conQnued Develop clear measurable strategies & approaches for alternaQve lean/skunkworks acquisiQon and development • Provide specific cost, schedule, and performance‐based needs Refined integrated mission design and planning (CONOPS): • Manifes#ng / sequencing of: missions, launches, vehicles, elements and block developments • Ground and in‐space opera#ons infrastructure and support requirements and assets • Mission opera#ons, communica#ons, naviga#on and IT requirements and assets • Manufacturing, supply chain, resources requirements, assets and availability Assessment of partnership opportuniQes and consideraQons: • Technologies, vehicles and/or elements • Interna#onals, Other Government Agencies, industry/commercial, academia Refined cost assessments • Refined DDT&E, First Unit and Produc#on for: systems, elements, vehicles & technologies • Cost margins, uncertainty assessment and valida#on assessment; Cost phasing and sand charts RecommendaQons • Updated launch vehicle, crew vehicle and in‐space elements recommenda#ons • Updated commercial launch (crew, cargo, HEX element and propellant) strategies • Updated technology development plans Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 75
- 76. HEFT Phase II AcQviQes (Longer Term) Support transiQon from approved HEFT results to programmaQc implementaQon • Synergy and interac#on with Program(s) implementa#on strategy ConQnue iteraQve refinement of overall human exploraQon strategy Periodic assessment of program status against strategy – support PPBE process Periodic assessment of technology progress against strategy, including impacts to strategy from “game‐changing” technologies and relevant on‐ramps/off‐ramps Support Reports Required by Law– to be supported, or led as appropriate Prepare responses to Congressional direcQon as needed Support , refine and parQcipate in lean development concept development/applicaQon IdenQfy internal Agency and external interfaces Develop long‐term staffing and organizaQonal approach: • Centralized Command/Leadership, Reach‐back to Centers/Contractors for detailed execu#on • Rely on exis#ng Agency organiza#ons and structure; Examples – OCE / OSMA Technical Steering Commirees for technical analyses, ESMD DIO, OCT Tech planning; Leverage current HEFT people • Detailees from Centers, engage younger employees across all disciplines as much as possible since they ul#mately have to “own” the results Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 76