1

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for Public Release. Approval # AFRL/XXXX-XXXX/ For more information on this document contact AFRL/RQ, 2130 Eighth Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7541

Integrity Service Excellence

AFRL Perspective Responsive &

Reusable Boost System (RBS)

ASEB-NRC Briefing

Bruce Thieman Jess Sponable

Air Force Research Laboratory 17 February 2012

2 2

AFRL Briefings to NRC on RBS

• AFRL Perspective on Reusable Booster Technology

– 1/2 hour

• RBS Program

– 1 hour (40 min brief and 20 min discussion)

• Hydrocarbon Boost Technology Program

(Tomorrow)

– 1 hour (40 min brief and 20 min discussion)

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

4 4

Emerging Themes/Needs

• 3X cost reduction for RBS, 10X achieved via full reusability • Payloads

– Pico, Nano, +

– 10-15K (CPGS, Small Medium, etc.)

– EELV Replacement to 17-64K lbs

• Global ISR/Strike • Sortie Payloads • Disaggregated Payloads (AFSPC/CC) • Hypersonic testing/testbed • Commercial providers • Point to Point Transport? • Many potential users: AFSPC, GSC, ACC (ASC), STRATCOM,

AMC, NCA, OSD, NRO, NASA, etc.

AFSPC LONG TERM S&T CHALLENGES

Provide a full spectrum launch capability at dramatically lower cost

Provide real-time cross-domain, predictive, assured situational

awareness

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

5 5

A Decade of Studies Recommend: Initial Steps Reusable Boost System

• Predicted launch savings at 50 to 67% – Reduces expendable hardware by a factor of three

(Key element is reusable engines) – Avoid Shuttle-like manpower-intensive support

• Recent analysis: – AFRL Responsive Space Advanced Technology Study

(2003) – Operationally Responsive Spacelift AOA (2004) – USECAF Vector 1 Launch Study (2005) – Aerospace Future Launch Study (2006) – AF SAB Future Launch Vehicles Study (2010) – SMC Spacelift Development Plan (draft 2010) – EELV/RBS Total Cost of Ownership (2011) AFRL S&T Goals

• 66% cost reduction • 24 hr turn-around • 2-8 hr call up

UnclassifiedContains Contractor Proprietary Data

UnclassifiedContains Contractor Proprietary Data

Spacelift Development Plan Strategy

* Future Responsive Access to Space Technologies

Medium/Heavy

FY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035SYSTEM PRODUCTION

Future Reusable Upper Stage

Reusable Booster

SYSTEM DEMOs & DEVELOPMENT

TECHNOLOGY DEMOs & DEVELOPMENT

AFRL FAST* Ground Demo

EELV

AFRL HC Boost Engine Tech Demo

RBCC

Small(Up to ~5 kLb)

Next Gen Med/Heavy Lift

FY12 POM Commitment

Small RBS + SES Dev

RBS Flt Demo

*Funded

Decision

Unfunded

Partially Funded

Large RBS + LES Dev

HC EngineDev

Unclassified

Accelerated HCB Demo Shown with Industry Risk Mitigation

$62.2M from AFSPC in FY12/13

Domestic Engine Atlas V IOC

Small Expendable Stages (SES)MinotaurNext Gen Small Lift

Scramjet Upper Stage Demo

MS BDecision

Large RBS IOC

Small RBS IOC

IOC

Engine MS BDecision

(Mid 2022)

(Late 2025)

(2016)

(2017)

(2019)

(2019)

5

Consistent Study Results Reusable technology can reduce launch costs – ELV cost reductions not driven by technology

but rather by lean acquisition processes, high production rate & launch range streamlining Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

6

S&T Focus to Achieve the Goal

• Objective: Reduce Cost 50 to 67% for Spacelift • 60% of launch vehicle • 40% of ground ops • 10% of range ops • 40% of mission assurance

• Launch Vehicle • Reuse Booster Stage

• 200 reuse booster • 50 reuse engine

• More Efficient Engine for Booster and Upper Stage

• Design for maintainability, clean pad ops, 15 person contact/shift, 24 hour turn time, 2-8 hr callup

• Autonomous Flight Operations and Automated Flight Safety System

• Eliminate IOT&E/DT&E for every booster thru reusability & aircraft like ops

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

7

Vehicle Options& Flight Rate Comparison

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 Flight Rate (Launches/Year)

20-Year Life Cycle Cost ($B)

LEO Capacity = 15 klbs; Reusable Fleet Size = 4 up to 20 flts/yr, then 1 more per each additional 10 flts/yr (Values assume all-new developments - Costs in FY2004 Dollars)

Reusable Booster: Lowest LCC and Recurring Cost at All Likely Flight Rates

Exemplar, from extensive parametric analyses

Fully Expendable

Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 Flight Rate (Launches/Year)

Recurring Cost ($M/Flight)

Fully Expendable

Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

DoD Area of Interest

DoD Area of Interest

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

8

Reusable vs. Expendable Comparison

RBS Has Solid Cost Savings Potential

(This example based on 15 klb to LEO capability)

Expended H/W (klb)

Reused H/W (klb)

RLV

196 0

Fully-Reusable RLVs • Are big because orbiter must

go to/from orbit (80% of orbited mass is the orbiter)

• Drives higher development and production costs

ELV

33 0

Fully-Expendable ELVs • Expend large amounts of

hardware

• Drives higher recurring costs

RBS

12 61

RBS • Balance ELV-RLV Production and

Development costs, resulting in lower LCC for most cases

(Reusable

Booster System) Avoids 64% of ELV’s

expendable hardware

Avoids 69% of RLV’s reusable hardware

Note: Cost of expendable hardware is partly production, but also includes costs of documentation, testing, and reviews required to assure reliability. Reusable booster hardware can be designed with higher margins, and certified to permit reuse with minimal testing/review (similar to aircraft).

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

9

RBS Affordability: Reduction in Expended Hardware

Reusable Booster Staging Velocities Between Mach 3 and 7 Reduce Expended Dry Mass By Factor of 2-3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 1st Stage Separation Delta-V (kft/sec)

Tota

l Exp

ende

d D

ry W

eigh

t (kl

b)

Glideback Rocketback

Downrange Landing

Mac

h 3.

5

Mac

h 7

Jetback or

55% Reduction

67% Reduction

(Example: 25 klb to LEO) Fully Expendable Vehicle Weight

Best region for RBS design

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

10

RBS vs. Shuttle Processing Manpower

Infrastructure

Integration

Payloads

Spaceport

Post Ops

Upper Stages

Reusable Booster

OPERATIONS Shuttle Reusable System Orbiter Booster Summary of Improvements

Thermal 18,914 12 Mach 6 or less Vs. Mach 25 Shuttle reentrycreates benign reentry environment

Crew Support 15,893 0 No crew or on-orbit operations

Mechanical 12,482 42 Modern self-contained actuationBenign environmentHigher margins

Vehicle Reconfigfor Payload 10,434 ~0 No payload bay, No reconfiguration. Payload

carried in fairing on expendable upper stage.

OMS/RCS 5,771 7 No OMS. Non-toxic RCS.

Electrical 8,205 34 Batteries only. No Fuel Cells. No APUs.

Propulsion 7,774 75 Modern hydrocarbon engines, High-margins, Reduced performance requirements

Labor Hours Labor Hours

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

Reusable Booster Avoids Maintenance Issues of Previous Reusables by Focusing on only Reusable Booster – not Orbiter

11

Design Region Sensitivity

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 Stage Propellant Mass Fraction

(Propellant Mass / Gross Mass)

Vehi

cle

Gro

ss W

eigh

t (10

6 lb

)

RBS = Reusable 1st stage, Expendable upper stages

May Lead to Compromise of Operability

for Early Systems

RBS Configuration Facilitates Robust Margins Mass fraction of expendable stages: 0.9

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

12

Rocket Vs. Hypersonic Propulsion

Far Term 1st Stage Solution

Reusable boosters need high thrust to accelerate quickly & reduce gravity/drag losses. Vertical takeoff rocket (RP) preferred in long term for reusable booster.

Dominant Factor Based on Rocket Equation:

ΔV = Isp • (g) • ln(mi/mf) – gravity/drag losses

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Booster Staging Delta-V (fps)

50

100

150

200

250

Reu

sabl

e B

oost

er D

ry W

eigh

t (lb

)

Mac

h 3.

5

Mac

h 7.

0

TBCC* Booster (horizontal takeoff)

(Example: 25 klb to LEO)

RP Rocket Booster (vertical takeoff)

Hypersonic

* TBCC- Turbine Based Combined Cycle Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

13 13

What is Reusable Booster System?

• Vertical lift, horizontal land, Reusable Booster System

• Demonstrate key features on subscale system(s)

• Return-to-base maneuver

• Turn time and cost savings

• Benefit to Warfighter:

• > 50-66% cost reduction for launch on schedule

• 2-8 hr call-up, 24-48 hour turn around from call up to launch, and 90% weather availability for assured strike and launch on demand

Boost or Glide

Back ~ Mach 3.5 - 7 Staging

~ 150K feet altitude

Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release, SMC/XR 19 Oct 2010: JDA18564

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time, sec

Hea

trat

e, B

TU/ft

2-se

c

Minimal reentry heating

Low ascent heating

15 15

Hybrid Reusable Booster Technology Maturation

Vision Engine

Physics-Based MS&A tools

Risk Reduction Integrated Engine Cycle Testing

(250Klbs Thrust - Subscale)

Prototype & Flight Weight Engine (SMC)

HC Boost Demo

Airframe Structures

Adaptive Guidance & Control

Pathfinder Rocket Back Demo (SMC & AFRL)

Flight Demo or X-Plane

(AFSPC funded)

USET

FAST

RBS Responsive Ops Test

(AFRL)

(AFRL)

A $385 million integrated suite of ground & flight technologies

Integrated Vehicle Health Mngment

2015

2014-2020 2027+

2020

Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.