Operationally Responsive Space 1 Lessons Learned

Transcription

1 Approved for Public Release: PAIRS CASE Operationally Responsive Space 1 Lessons Learned Presented to AIAA/Utah State University Small Satellite Systems Conference August 16, 2012 THOM DAVIS Chief, Plans and Programs Division Operationally Responsive Space Office Kirtland Air Force Base, NM

2 Overview Background Program Description Integration and Test Launch and Early Operations Current Status Lessons Learned Summary 2

3 Operationally Responsive Space DoD officially defines Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) as assured space power focused on timely satisfaction of Joint Force Commanders needs. ORS contains two key elements: Assurance of capabilities Timely delivery New approach Rather than trying to operationalize national space utilities ORS model designs military capabilities directly for the operational commander By building systems on smaller satellites using modular components, ORS provides the ability to rapidly augment U.S. space systems 3

4 ORS-1 Mission Joint Force Commander Request USCENTCOM request for enhanced battlefield awareness Avoided burden of traditional top-down procurements Provides timely coverage, responsive theater tasking, and proven operational utility ORS Solution Capabilities-based development Payload derived from U-2 aircraft sensor Spacecraft bus derived from TacSat-3 Ground C² uses MMSOC Maximizes reuse of airborne TPED 4

5 ORS-1 Background Initiative Assessment Program Approval Build Decision Operationally Responsive Space Satellite 1 (ORS-1) for USCENTCOM USSTRATCOM ORS JFC need #3: rcvd 8 Apr 08 ORS Office evaluated multiple options - Alternatives considered both non-material and material solutions - ORS Office coordinated potential solutions with USCENTCOM - Study contract awarded to multiple payload and bus contractors - Goodrich/ATK provided concept using SYERS 2 payload and TacSat-3 bus - Good Enough key criteria AFSPC, AF/A2, Army, AFRL, NRL, CENTCOM/J2, JFCC Space, other agencies participated in review of solutions Briefed to EA for Space (SECAF) on 6 Oct 08 - Acquisition Decision (to CDR): 6 Oct 08 - Initial Contract Award: 23 Oct 08 - PDR: Mar 09 - CDR: Jun 09 - Independent reviews conducted by Aerospace Corp. & AFCAA Decision Brief to Mr. Donley on 15 Jul 09 - Multiple organizations represented at decision review -USCENTCOM restated need and support for ORS-1 solution - Approval to proceed at speed of need to IOC - Funding shortfalls resolved at meeting in Dec 09 ORS-1 launched on 29 June 2011; early COCOM acceptance on 21 September

6 ORS-1 Program Specifics Led by ORS Office; program executed by Space and Missiles Center/ Space Development and Test Directorate Contractors: Space Vehicle: Goodrich, ATK LV: Orbital Sciences Corporation C2 system: Lockheed Martin, USAF 50 th Space Wing Tasking System: NRL/GD Mission Data Processing: US Army Ground Antenna: L3 Communications Program Status Program Start (10/08) Preliminary Design Review (3/09) Critical Design Review (6/09) Build Decision (7/09) SV bus delivered (4/10) Space Vehicle TVAC completed (4/6/11) Space Vehicle shipped to NASA Wallops (5/20/11) Launch: 6/29/11) Early COCOM Acceptance: 9/21/11 AFSPC FOC: 1/03/12

7 ORS-1 Space Vehicle Primary sensor based on Goodrich SYERS-2A imager ATK flight-proven responsive space modular base from TacSat-3 High-strength aluminum structure: Zero-momentum, 3-axis stabilization Hydrazine Propulsion for Orbit Maintenance Modular Bus for streamlined I&T GN&C subsystem provides maximum agility for targeting 468 kg total mass

8 ORS-1 Mission Operations MMSOC Ground Support Architecture Virtual Mission Operations Center Description NRL developed planning tool to support mission operations stakeholders User interface to task & view schedules Takes inputs from user requests, and applies modeled sensor/vehicle constraints automatically to provide promoted mission schedule Mission Description Standard satellite ground system for the R&D, ORS, and operational communities Control system enables AFSPC to rapidly transition satellites from R&D to Ops Mission operations conducted at SOC-11, Schriever AFB, CO 8

9 Common Data Link EO/IR data files require large bandwidth downlink capability ORS is leveraging services investment development from services airborne TARS and TWISTER ground station Lightweight CDL developed by L3 Communications for ORS small satellite applications Downlink and processing for ORS-1 Ground stations provide optimum in terms delivering data to the user Goodrich developed GSEG used for initial processing of mission data KU frequency allocation approved for ORS-1 mission KA band development underway to be used for future applications from space

10 ORS-1 System Architecture Tailored to COCOM Requirements JIOC/CM Ku Band 274 Mbps Encrypted CDL VMOC View Commanding Telemetry Raw Data GSEG AFSCN Commanding Telemetry Ephemeris Schedule Info Maintenance Activities DCGS-A Processing & Exploitation Processed Data Processed Data Archives VMOC View Request for Tasking File Promoted Schedule AFWC MMSOC GSA Space Operations Center State of Health OPSCAP/SYSC AP Mission VMOC Terrestrial WX

11 ORS-1 Tasking, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination CONUS Unclassified Cleared for Public Release 11

12 Integration & Test Space Vehicle assembly, integration, and test completed at Goodrich Danbury facility ORS-1 team completed space vehicle within 32 months despite multiple technical challenges Expertly used workarounds to maintain overall schedule MIL-STD-1540 basis for testing requirements but extensive tailoring was adapted to reduce cost and schedule Space qualification environment testing included thermal vacuum testing, systems level acoustic testing, and testing validated spacecraft performance and functionality End-to-end testing of ground architecture was completed to verify interoperability of the interactions between USCENTCOM, VMOC, MMSOC, GSEG, and ground stations

13 Launch Integration Concerns from Taurus launch anomalies resulted in six week launch delay Minor mods to Minotaur I software and fairing rails to mitigate risk concerns ORS-1 team completed space vehicle fueling, leak tests, installation of motorized light band, SOFTRIDE, solar panels, abbreviated functional testing and S/V software updates Near perfect launch on 29 June 2011 and ORS-1 placed into a 400-kilometer circular orbit at a 40 degree inclination Outstanding effort by Goodrich/ATK, OSC, SMC/SD, and NASA at NASA Wallops launch facility Unclassified Cleared for Public Release 13

14 Early Operations ORS-1 government/contractor team moved to Shriever AFB and quickly completed early orbit checkout involving component initialization, sensor calibration, and ground systems validation ORS-1 program office transitioned operational control to the 50 th Space Wing s 1 st Space Operations Squadron on 16 September 2011 Early COCOM Acceptance by USCENTCOM accomplished on 21 September 2011 Full Operational Acceptance (FOC) by AFSPC/CC on 3 January

15 Current ORS-1 Status Sustainment team continues to provide on-orbit support Improvements to calibration Software updates Resolution of anomalies USCENTCOM is very satisfied with ORS-1 and it s capabilities ORS-1 and ground architecture integrated seamlessly into airborne architecture USCENTCOM utilization continues to grow Joint Military Utility Assessment shows significant value to Warfighter 15

16 ORS-1 Lessons Learned Critical Success Factors Leadership must empower program team to execute in a nontraditional acquisition and system integration environment Small, cohesive team leveraged R&D experience Program team was adept at tailoring standards and communicating approaches to invested agencies Absolutely critical to have leadership create and maintain consistent vision Systems requirements were well vetted with the customer up front Program goals well-communicated at all tiers up and down the chain Key stakeholders understood the acquisition, and operational requirements and managed to a good enough mindset Minimize development! Explore all avenues to leverage heritage assets Great value derived from leveraging space and ground elements to reduce extent of development effort System architecture leaned heavily on legacy capabilities Preserve the sense of urgency throughout the development ORS-1 program constantly re-evaluated schedules, approaches, and objectives to explore all acceleration and recovery options 16

17 ORS-1 Lessons Learned Mission Assurance Non-traditional acquisition and federated nature of the ORS-1 system made mission assurance effort complicated Traditional mission assurance approaches not suitable for ORS-1 program due to data limitation and varied pedigree of various components Practices and entities varied depending on the acquiring organization s existing program effort spent to tailor and align work with program posture Independent Program Assessment (IPA) by Aerospace Corporation provided invaluable strategic insight and accurately identified technical challenges and likely sources of organizational friction No need to drive product risk to zero; focus on what can be done to enhance reliability given constrained situation Risk Management IPT leads owned the ORS-1 risks, recurring program tag-ups served as forums for discussing program risk, strategy, and implementing risk mitigation measures. Tests and objectives were tailored in literally real time or near real time as necessary to address certain risks Flexibility of test program enhanced ability of team to effectively mitigate and verify resolution of risks As major milestones (e.g., launch) approach, the program must follow through with risk posture. 17

18 ORS-1 Lessons Learned Testing ORS-1 testing tailored based on system constraints and program context Schedule was a key driver; scope often limited to essential function/objective Program accepted risk of pushing some tests to higher levels of assembly No one size fits all solution and it is not a static process Tailor test approach based on mission and use integration by parts approach to architecture verification Take small wins early, gathering verifications as elements come together Tests done in parallel and as available - active management approach is required Preliminary test results were sufficient to proceed to next level of test and final test reports served as crumb catchers Test team continuously re-evaluated test objectives; telescope qualification due to schedule, deferred vibration testing. Thermal Vacuum testing during dwells ran other tests that had been deferred at lower levels 18

19 ORS-1 Lessons Learned Other Observations It s all about the people Dedicated, skilled, and cohesive team: Integrated government/contractor team who were able to work a myriad of issues ORS requirement & concept refinement process works well Inclusive process matched warfighter req ts with achievable capabilities Independent analysis identified good out of the box solutions Small, agile team key to executing at a fast pace Adequate and stable funding absolute necessity senior leadership buy-in and advocacy required Operational prototype capability costs significantly more than S&T demonstration TacSat-3, TacSat-4, and ORS-1 demonstrated that small satellites have military utility!

20 Summary TacSat-3, TacSat-4, and ORS-1 have demonstrated utility of small satellites for military operations Outstanding, dedicated effort by entire ORS-1 team Expertly worked around myriad of technical issues and other concerns to move forward Delivered capability within 32 months after program approval by DoD EA for space ORS initiatives are laying path for future rapid reaction space systems ORS-1 Wallops Jun 11 TacSat-4 Kodiak Sep 11 USCENTCOM is extremely pleased with ORS-1 - it has met or exceeded its projected capabilities and additional capabilities and applications continue to unfold.

21 Questions? C 4 ISR Journal 25 New Technologies Award RNASA Stellar Team Award 21