Developing Commercial Crew Transportation Capability through Technological Milestones. Ronald H. Freeman Northcentral University Prescott Valley, AZ

Transcription

1 Developing Commercial Crew Transportation Capability through Technological Milestones Ronald H. Freeman Northcentral University Prescott Valley, AZ

2 The Military, NASA, and Launch Vehicle Providers: Cheap Access to Space through Commercial Space Development. One Goal, Three Paths.

3 Why? The Military needs contractors cost data to negotiate contract pricing, or no buy-block terms. NASA realizes LV providers lower cost capability to access space. Uncertain funding. Better to outsource LV production to contractors. LV contractors/providers increase profits with large numbers of end-users. Better to scaffold ready cash-markets to invest in L/T space exploration endeavors.

4 Major Space Industry Concerns Cost Performance Reliability Industrial Base Safety

5 Funding,Cost Solutions, Recommended A. Baker Research Institute, Rice University Re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the need for developing a National Launch System and multi-purpose vehicle. Consider in-orbit assembly options and architecture for manned space exploration (mod. X-37). Prioritize ISS missions and robotic exploration and science programs. Consider a larger X-37C to transport cargo to ISS. Re-consider developing fly-back boosters (state of art technology, 1970s vs 2013). Operate with re-usable spacecraft ( ie. X-27 to lower spaceflight costs). Develop space commercialization to foster competition, thus downward pressure on space access cost. B. Hon. Robert Walker, Former Chairman, House Science, Space &Technology Committee, US Congress Sell private sponsorships to future NASA projects or launch vehicles. C. NASA s Inspector General Paul Martin Improve utilization of NASA s facilities (33 facilities without future mission plans identified for closing) D. Actual Events Cancel the Constellation Program (February, 2010) Suspend Space Shuttle Program,

6 Performance and Reliability Historical Summary of Space Activities Performance Probability Rocket Propulsion Systems and Performance National Institute of Rocket Propulsion Systems Study

7 Private Commercial Spaceflight Development Timeline When? Who? What? Status? Outcome? Then? <1960s Robert Truax Developed rockets in 1930s Rocket Mail Service Rocket Clubs, pre-world War 2 Failed testing for US Post Office in 1959 Rocketry 19960s AMSAT Birth of Nanosat 1970s Volks Rocket X s Lutz Keyser Spacehab Co. Orbital Sciences co. GCH, Inc. Ortrag To develop cargo module for Space Shuttle Pergasus Percheron Space Services Inc. Connestoga I (1982) Cancelled due to cold war politics 1st Launch in 1990 Failed flight test First serious design for suborbital space tourist vehicle Innovative modular design of multi-stage orbital rocket built from cluster of low cost rockets Privately funded for development and construction. 100% private funding. Air launched. Solidfueled vehicle. Lack of capital for development Amateur Radio Community Lack of funding for project development Design utilized byarmadillo Aerospace NASA contract used to support Shuttle/Mir and ISS programs. DARPA contracts, but no DARPA funding for development Successful launch tests Lack of capital. Company failed

8 International Microspace Project design to develop Lack of capital. Starstruck Project design to develop Lackof capital AMROC High performance hybrid rocket Accidents/ fatalities Decreased investor confidence. Sold to SpaceDev E'Prime Aerospace Used converted ICBMs for commercial launches Successful 5 min. flight to alt.14,000 ft.with P/L of 4 x experiments 1990s Teledesic Planned constellation of several hundred satellites to provide hi-speed broadband services Contracted several launch co.'s. No launch but high assoc. costs Decreased investor confidence. Business went NASA launch services. Company failed Advent Launch Services No development funds Beal Aerospace BA-810 Hydrogen Peroxide/ Kerosene fueled Competition with NASA'a EELVs Company closed Kistler Aerospace K-1 Re-usable 2- stage orbital launcher to serve LEO constellation market. Bankruptcy to later become solvent Rocketplane buyout in 2006

9

10

11 Launch Vehicle Subsystem Failures, Launch Vehicle Subsystem Failures, Country Propulsion Avionics Separation Electrical Structural Other Unknown Total U.S CIS/USSR Europe China Japan India Israel 1 1 Brazil 2 2 N. Korea 1 1 Total

12

13

14 Review Factors For The Decline in Rocket Engine Development (NIRPS) Skill set in critical areas aging and not being replaced. Suppliers facing an overseas ITAR-affected market and competition. USG exposure to cost overruns, schedule slippage and performance issues. USG s frequent program starts and cancellations and predictable long-term funding. NIRPS National Institute of Rocket Propulsion Systems, Office of Science and Technology, White House, Washington, DC.

15 Results of NIRPS Study Industrial base viable but threatened due to increased foreign competition, decreased expectant launch growth rate. Decreased market uncertainty due to much lower US budget for operations and R & D. Note uncertainty in USG acquisition processes, in pairing budgets for R & D & technology to match strategic needs. Per US security and economic competitiveness, need viable propulsion industrial base Recommendation: To reform export controls. To re-engage industrial base with new technology, lower costs. To streamline access to US facilities and expertise. High supplier costs and lower supplier base, increase launch costs. Critical component supplied through single domestic or foreign supplier. Fewer engineers with experience in propulsion systems development. Misperception that coordinated NASA-DoD collaboration affects policies and decisions made.

16 Level of Safety Criteria Is Key to Developing LV Design and Operations Requirements Certification Regime Based on design characteristics Expensive; large and mature markets can offset initial investments New industry: private LV co. resources< govt. resources Emerging industry faced with design newness, market uncertainty per testing and design modifications Appropriate for mass-produced vehicles and for mass-utilization Low historical private suborbital flight data vs. governmental data Licensing Regime Licensing safety of launch events vs. launch vehicles Provides increased flexibility for CST industry to grow and develop Appropriate for low quantity of vehicles produced (3-10 per year). FAA scrutiny of Flight Termination Systems for EELVs and Thrust termination systems for piloted re-usable LVs.

17 Status of Launch Vehicle Industry Commercial NewSpace Model Military Sector Space Tourism Sector LV Industry Revenue Model NASA and The Space Agreement Acts

18 Commercial Spaceflight Industry Model of Industry Revenues (Tauri Group Study, ) Level I. Low revenues for personal orbital and suborbital spaceflights Space Adventures earned $142M in 2006 to $258M in 2008 Level II. Future revenues for SLV suppliers of hardware, hardware development and services. Level III. Revenues of industry members indirectly relevant to LV industry (eg. Jacob s Engineering, Pratt and Whitney, Raytheon s Space and Airborne systems). Estimated earnings of $24M in FY2006 increased to $1.4B in FY 2008) Total investments committed through mid-2009 totaled $1.51B, 41% of which was spent by mid Primary source= Angel investors (50%); Government and private equity firms (40%), and SLV reinvestments (5%). More than 50% targeted orbital markets ($730M); suborbital markets, 33% ($467M); and infrastructure ($200M).

19 The NewSpace Industry NASA outsourcing rocket making activities. US policy to develop synergies through publicprivate partnerships for developing space commercialization. LV industry becoming more competitive Space X awarded first non-ula contract from Pentagon Space X signed 14 launch contracts in 2012; world s fastest growing launch services provider. Major space-related events: (1) ISS re-supply mission capability demonstrated by Orbital Sciences and Space X (2) Sarah Brightman to sing from space on ISS, heralding space tourism. Space Adventures reported 2006 income of $120M in spaceflight sales for first five years. To represent with Armadillo Company for space $100K/seat Canadian Adventure Travel Company and Uniktour Company to represent Space X. Dutch AXE Company to represent XCOR. Pan American Airways System registered Pan Am Space Clippers with State of Delaware to enter space tourism industry in five years (Source: IFG, Jan. 14, 2013).

20 DoD Market For Launch Services (GAO Report to US Congress) Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program to provide space access for USG satellites (firm fixedprice contracts). Four contracts awarded to define EELV concepts and complete Preliminary System Designs Approved two contractors (Boeing s Delta IV and Lockheed Martin s Atlas V) per anticipated LV growth forecast without FAR (b) requiring contractor pricing data New market forecasted much lower demand for commercial launches,which increased EELVP costs Revised EELV Acquisition Strategy. DoD, primary EELV customer for launch services. From Award cost+ fee contracts for launch infrastructure (incl. launch pads and ranges, labor) and launches. To Firm-fixed price contracts with mission success incentivizing provisions. Require certified cost or pricing data from LV contractors to ensure fair pricing negotiations (FAR, Part 6). DoD can waive the pricing data requirement USAF Approves waiver of certified cost requirement per subcontractor data and with $650K+ orders Lower DoD oversight results in decreased EELVP reporting to DoD and Congress EELV prices skyrocket upwards. Tiger Team (USAF, DoD, NRO, NASA) to develop new Acquistn. Strategy Tiger Team: No Buy-blocks. Contracts for singular launches as needed, resulting EELV uncertainty and reduced demand for LV components, thus higher launch costs. New space companies to compete and drive costs down.

21 The Military DARPA to award 6 contracts for launch vehicle provider of small airborne launch vehicles capable of reaching LEO carrying 100 pound satellite for less than $1M on a 24 hour notice with payload -integration and -launch capabilities (ALASA). Launch System Design and Development Concepts: Lockheed ($6.3M); Boeing ($4.5M) Enabling Technologies: Northrup-Grumman ($2.3); Space Information Labs ($1.9M); Ventions ($970K). USAF changes acquisition strategy for launch services procurement (DoD Acquisition Chief Frank Kendall, Dec., 28, 2012): Block-buy 36 cores from ULA and open!$ for competitive bidding.

22 NASA Space X s Falcon 9 cost about $400 M compared to an estimated NAFCM developmental cost of $1.2 B. Spacecraft manufacture cost model developed from a 13 year historical database of 130 NASA and US Air Force spaceflight hardware programs. NASA Space Act of 1958 authorizes planning, directing and conducting space activities of which data is archived and made available; the community is included for full participation; and, commercial utilization is competitively available. Open Government. FAA/ AST has licensed 200+ commercial space launches since 1989, and 5 commercial, manned suborbital flights (SpaceShipOne, 2004). Licensing to ensure public health and safety, not certifying launch vehicle.

23 NASA Commercial Space Model Early Space Age Approach Cost+ contract fee Prime contractors NASA Funding capability for procurement NASA defines what and how to develop capability. ISS Crew Mission Very much government involvement Detailed design requirements Unlimited data and lots of deliverables High costs NewSpace Approach Fixed price Public private partnerships NASA funding per milestone payments NASA defines what, industry defines how NASA defines top level capabilities needed NASA and industry share cost Commercial Crewed Transport Government defined HR requirements Pay for performance milestones to lower costs

24 Space Act Agreements: NASA Collaboration 250 new SAAs per year (domestic and foreign partners) of 1-5 year durations. Include mostly leasing NASA facilities and joint basic research. Include 50% private sector collaborating on technologies outside NASA core competencies SAAs reimburseable; funded (Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Space X); Non-reimburseable to invest private capital and to demonstrate end-to-end space transport. SpaceDev, tot. 18 milestones (6 design rev., 3 TRL) SpaceHab, tot. 12 milestones (7 design rev., 3 safety, 1 risk, 3 TRL) PlanetSpace, tot. 31 milestones (4 des rev., 13 safety, 12 testing) Transformational Space Corp., tot. 31 milestones (4 design,5 risk,, 14 testing, 4 TRL) Constellation Services Int.l, tot. 13 milestones (5 design rev.,4 safety, 3 testing, 4 TRL) NASA to provide library of relevant data and information Program know-how Resources as available

25

26

27