SMALLER is Better: Technical Considerations for ORS

Transcription

1 SMALLER is Better: Technical Considerations for ORS Lt Col G.R. Nagy, USAF Deputy Chief, Operationally Responsive Space Division HQ AFSPC/A5V 10 Aug 10 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This briefing is for information only. No U.S. Government commitment to sell, loan, lease, co-develop or co-produce defense articles or provide defense services is implied or intended.

2 ORS Capability Team Mission Anticipate and respond to Joint Force Commander urgent needs; exploit and infuse space technologies and operational innovations to employ, deploy, or develop low-cost space capabilities; and augment or reconstitute space systems to support the Joint Force Commanders and national leadership. Image courtesy of Crosslink (The Aerospace Corporation, 2009) Space Effects at the Speed of Combat 2

3 Operationally Responsive Space Division (A5V) Responsibilities Develop responsive requirements for urgent mission needs validated by CDRUSSTRATCOM (DoD ORS Office-led Urgent Need process) Develop space system reconstitution and augmentation requirements Demonstrate, mature, and transition Air Force-operated ORS experimental capabilities to residual warfighting capability/operations Plan and program (in conjunction w/launch Enterprise Transformation, Satellite Operations Architecture and Intelligence communities) to develop a rapid response end-to-end infrastructure Influence doctrine, develop operational concepts, training, and organizational constructs required to execute responsive space missions at the speed of warfighter need HQ AFSPC is responsible for Organizing, Training, and Equipping of Air Force space forces 3

4 AF Enabling Capabilities for ORS Infrastructure Multi-Mission Satellite Operations Center (MMSOC) Space Command & Control (C2) Tasking Processing Exploitation & Dissemination (TPED) integration Responsive launch and range Rapid assembly, integration, test and checkout Spacecraft Standards, modularity (busses, instruments, etc.) Responsive launch operations Trained personnel 4

5 ORS as an Operational Concept Recon Wing Capability for Space Responsive Platforms - Satellite buses - Plug-n-play satellite payloads - Launch Vehicles Responsive Payloads Rapid Build-Up/TurnTimes - JFC Call-Up - Operation, not acquisition - Air Tasking Order Responsiveness - Sustained high ops tempo Responsive Buses Payload Flexibility Telescopes, comm pkgs, Mini-SAR RF ID, PAN/MSI/HSI backplane CDL On-Demand Launchers Bus Flexibility/Compatibility Plug-n-Play, standard interfaces Modularity Multi-Mission SOC Responsive Infrastructure - Scalable, Responsive Lift - Responsive Range & Network - Responsive Sat Ops - Responsive, Tailorable C2 & TPED 5

6 2010 ORS-Related Activities TacSat-3 AFRL hyperspectral imaging small satellite experiment (launched 19 May 2009) Launched and operated by AFSPC (Space Development and Test Wing (SDTW), Kirtland AFB NM) Transitioned to residual warfighter capability (Jun 10) Mission planning/tasking via 50th Space Wing (50 SW) (Schriever AFB CO) 1 st free-flying ISR satellite under direct control of a non- Intelligence Community DoD element ORS-1 (Fall 10 launch) ReusesTacSat-3 technologies (satellite bus, datalinks) ORS Office-led Urgent Need effort providing theater ISR Acquired and launched by SDTW Two-year development cycle Refines TacSat-3 enabling concepts (C2, TPED) 1 st operational use of MMSOC ground system architecture (GSA) Operated by 50 SW 6

7 Related AF-led Small Satellite Efforts STP-S26 (Fall 2010) Multiple ESPA-class microsatellites on multipayload Minotaur IV 1 st flight of DoD Space Test Program Standard Interface Vehicle 1 st use of MMSOC GSA Manifest includes 2 3U CubeSats (NASA/NSF) ESPA Standard Service 1 st flight in 2012 Manifest currently in work 7

8 Why Is Smaller Often Better? Engineering challenges for smaller space systems are generally less complex Structural design Launch vehicle integration Power/thermal balance Control algorithms Satellite cost/complexity scales with mass & volume Improved acquisition cycle time & tech refresh rate for smaller systems Can leverage state of the world capabilities in commercial sector/academia Small satellite effectiveness most greatly enhanced by modern microelectronics Major tradeoff is individual platform capability Exquisite systems vs good enough to win Launch/replenishment costs for constellations of smaller systems vs fewer numbers of more capable platforms If a defensible [space] posture can be achieved not only by hardening and improving maneuverability of large, complex satellites, but also by smaller, simpler satellites, then we might emphasize further development of some less exquisite augmentation systems. With flattening budgets and likely declining purchasing power, these sorts of tradeoffs, while difficult, must be considered. - Gen Norton A. Schwartz, USAF Chief of Staff, 18 Feb 10 8

9 Spacecraft 1 st Fundamental Frequency Plot (Nagy and Berberian, 2010) Spacecraft 1st Fundamental Frequency (Hertz) Tangent value mass = 78 kg sigma upper bound sigma lower bound Avg = 6056 Hz kg / Mass Spacecraft Mass (kilograms) Smaller spacecraft are stiffer and facilitate easier integration onto multiple launchers 9

10 Areas for Future Development Needed future capabilities Modular ( plug and play ) satellite construction Payload flexibility/standard interfaces Responsive, scalable, modular infrastructure (C2, TPED, datalinks, netcentricity, etc.) ORS mission and business/acquisition models (e.g., Rapid Response Space Works ) Where/How Industry & Academia can help Where? Sensor development Miniaturization Plug and Play open architectures Rapid assembly, integration, test and checkout Affordable small/medium launch Enabling concepts for SATOPS/C2/TPED How? Partnership to develop sustainable ORS business case Embrace sensor plug and play compatibility Transition from proprietary-based practices to open standards approaches 10

11 What is Required from the Small Satellite Community? Need to clearly articulate the value proposition for small satellite capability solutions In terms that are consistent with formal DoD requirements processes (i.e., Joint Capabilities Integration Development System) Show how essential military capabilities can be provided in a fiscallyconstrained environment Migrate decades-long research & development heritage into full ops capability Demonstrate how small satellite CONOPS may differ from traditional space acquisition approaches to enhance responsiveness Networked space solutions (ground/space/link segments) Rideshare policies, procedures, and technical implementation Address policy issues associated with space debris mitigation Small satellite community already heavily invested in demonstrating technical solutions (tethers, drag enhancement devices, etc.) 11

12 Additional Information Contact Information: HQ AFSPC/A5V 150 Vandenberg St., Suite 1105 Peterson AFB CO High Frontier Journal (Volume 6 No. 3) Operationally Responsive Space Questions? 12