TRANSFORMATIONAL SYSTEMS CONCEPTS & TECHNOLOGIES FOR FUTURE SPACE MISSIONS

THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US Space Resources Roundtable

October 2003
Assistant Associate Administrator for Advanced Systems (act.) Chief Technologist, Space Flight Enterprise Office of Space Flight / NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546 to the

John C. Mankins

October 2003

SRR_Page

INTRODUCTION

October 2003

SRR_Page

Stepping Stones to the Future

2003 NASA Strategic Plan

We are developing a robust, integrated exploration strategy to guide our investments. Through our new building block capabilities and scientific discoveries, we create stepping stones to the future
October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page

Strategic Concept: Phased Exploration & Discovery

Low Earth Orbit The Earths Neighborhood
High Earth Orbit
Earth-Moon L1

INTRODUCTION

The Neighborhood of Mars

(and its Moons)

The Moon

Sun-Earth L2

Mars

Asteroids

Beyond...

As Early as 2015 Capability for

the

For Now.. Getting Ready

Initial 50-100 day Class Missions

As Early as 2020-2025 the Capability for

After 2025+

300-1000 day class Initial Interplanetary Missions

With Diverse Opportunities to Enable Continuing Commercial Development of Space

Sustainable Campaigns

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page

INTRODUCTION Technology and Innovation Strategy -- EXAMPLES

New Concepts

New Concepts and Current Technologies

Create Innovative Concepts -- and Drive out Opportunities/Needs for Revolutionary Advances in Technology

Revolutionary Concepts Using Breakthrough Technologies

New Concepts Using New Technologies Current Concepts and Technologies

Current Concepts and New Technologies

New Technologies

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page

The View from the Top Missions & Markets

Systems Concepts Technologies

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page

TSCT Technical Interchange Meetings

October 2003

SRR_Page

TSCT Technical Interchange Meeting Series

New systems concepts and technologies are needed to achieve NASAs Vision and Mission The Advanced Systems Office within the Office of Space Flight at NASA Headquarters (Code M-7) has undertaken a series of brainstorming town-hall type meetings at which to identify options and opportunities for the future The first Transformational Systems Concepts and Technologies (TSCT) Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) was held at the Athenaem at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) in Pasadena, CA in January 2003
The focus was on identifying new concepts and technologies and vetting the basic concept that a transformation in how the US approaches space exploration, research and discovery is possible

The second meeting was held at the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) in June 2003
The focus was on identifying and assessing candidate technology options and opportunities for the future

The 3rd TSCT TI was held at CalTech and at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory during October 14-17, 2003

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page

TSCT TIM #3 Working Instructions / Ground Rules

TSCT TIM#3 will Examine a baseline that uses the major technological elements of an existing Design Reference Architecture (DRA) Identify no fewer than 2-3 fundamentally different Alternate Design Architectures (ADAs) Identify the key System Elements for both the DRA and the ADAs Payloads including living systems will be considered as a key trade for each OPTION and/or Design Architecture Ground Rules The time frame of interest for accomplishing the challenge is the period from 2010 to 2020 and beyond New technology is acceptable--there is no presumption of risk aversion--however, risks must be characterized The mission case is to be one of an ongoing campaign of activities
Assume: one mission per year for not less than 10 years

Multiple applications for the Design Architectures is a goal It is possible that a particular type of system may be useful in meeting the requirements of more than one OPTION
Alternatively, it is possible that a particular technology and/or subsystem will be used to meeting the requirements of more than one OPTION

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page

(Those elements of the Trade Space View Likely to Viable)

DRA (ADA 1) - Reusable High Energy Solar/Cryo
Modular systems, high-energy electric and cryo propulsion, pre-positioning of logistics/fuel in space, highly autonomous, human capable, enabled by advanced technology OPTIONS 2 through 5 Nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) replaces the SEP OPTIONS 2-5 All-expendable, all-chemical with direct entry at Earth return, modest robotics, minimum use of new technology OPTIONS 1 - 2 All-expendable, cryogenic propulsion with direct entry at Earth return, all-up mission option, some use of new technology OPTIONS 3-5 Reusable, all-chemical with aero-braking to orbit at Earth return, modest robotics, minimum use of new technology; Variation on Reusable Aerobrake versus Expendable Ballute OPTIONS 1 3-5 ADA 1, but with refueling on surface rather than in LLO enabled by ISRU (drops the SEP system); Variation: launch of lunar propellants to LLO or L1 OPTIONS: 3-5 Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) based, LOX-augmentation variation, fast-lunar trip enabling, no SEP, no pre-positioning of logistics, requires cryo propulsion for excursion vehicle OPTIONS 3-5 Orbit-based slingers; maglev or rail guns on the Moon chemical for landing, RCS, etc.

Potential Architecture Cases

ADA 1b - Expendable NEP (Reusable Variation)

ADA 2a - Expendable Chemical (~Apollo-like)

ADA 2b - Expendable Cryogenic (Advanced Apollo)

ADA 2c - Reusable Chem/Cryo - Aerobrake (~SEI-like)

ADA 3 - Reusable ISRU, Surface Ops (Space Ops Variation)

ADA 4 - Expendable NTR (Reusable Variation)

October 2003

ADA 5 - Longer-Term Space Infrastructures

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Alternate Design Architecture 1

Elements
Plus Missions

On-Demand Propellant Tanker

GEO Servicing Architecture

XTV Refuels at GEO

GEO

GEO ASSET

Return Leg Outbound Leg

Solar Electric Stages Spiral to LEO

XTV Fuels in LEO

Crew Transfer from OSP to XTV

Crew Transfer to OSP Propulsive Capture

Low Earth Orbit

Propellant Launch

OSP

OSP
LEO Tanker and OSP

OSP

OSP Crew Launch

OSP Crew Landing

Earth Surface

L1 Architecture
SunEarth L1
Observatories to-from L1 low-energy via transfers EarthMoon L1 XTV Refuels at L1

Lunar Architecture
Landing Leg
Descent Ascent

Low Lunar Orbit

XTV Refuels in Lunar Orbit

A B

XTV Refuels in Lunar Orbit

B A

Solar Electric Stages & Prop Tankers Spiral to L1

Return Leg Outbound Leg

Solar Electric Stages Spiral to LEO

Solar Electric Stages & Prop Tankers Spiral to LLO

Return Leg

Outbound Leg

Solar Electric Stages Spiral to LEO

B A

XTV Fuels in LEO Propellant Tankers

Crew Transfer from OSP to XTV

Crew Transfer to OSP Propulsive Capture

XTV Fuels in LEO

B

Propellant Tankers

Crew Transfer from OSP to XTV

OSP OSP

Crew Transfer to OSP Propulsive Capture

OSP

Low Earth Orbit

Propellant Launches (Qty TBD)

OSP

OSP
LEO Tanker and OSP

OSP

OSP Crew Launch

Low Earth Orbit

OSP Crew Landing

Earth Surface

Propellant Launches (Qty TBD)

OSP Crew Launch

LEO Tanker and OSP

OSP Crew Landing

Earth Surface

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Why Reusable Systems? Cost per Mission Improvement

Parametric Comparison of Levels of Expendability

1% EXPENDED 1 % EXPENDED 1 1 % EXPENDED 1

11 1

FLIGHT HARDWARE DRY MASS

1 % EXPENDED 1 11 1

11 1
(KG, 1111 s)

FOR CONSUMED MISSION HARDWARE AVERAGING ABOUT $ 11 kg , 111 / NOT INCLUDING NEW CAPABILITY
1 % EXPENDED 1

11 1

Range of Interest
Typical Dry Mass for a Human Lunar Mission - UPPER Limit Sustainable Approach

1 1

55 Typical Dry Mass for a Human Lunar Mission - LOWER Limit 1 1 1 1 EXPENDED 1%

Updated Apollo

11 1

11 1

11 1 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 RECURRING Beyond LEO MISSION HARDWARE COST ($,M)

11 11

Reusable Space Systems critical to reducing excessive expendable hardware costs of Apollo-derived architectures.
October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Notional Example Comparing Lunar Mission Hardware

Updated Apollo

Initial

M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

M-5

M-6

M-7

M-8

M-9

M-10

Sustainable Approach

7x

Initial
October 2003

M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

M-5

M-6

M-7

M-8

M-9

M-10

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Why Intelligent Modular Systems? Cost-Risk Improvement Notional Example: Modular Systems in Future Missions
Case A: Integrated System system
mass @ ~25 t
$$(1111 ) , .11 $(1111 ) , .11 $(1111 ) , .11 $(1111 ) , .11 $(1111 ) , .11 $(1111 ) , .11

Comparison of Cost-Risk Cases (Integrated vs. Modular Type w/ 1 % "Mass") 1 1

Case B: Modular Systems system redundancy @ 25%

Cost ($, M)

Class A (11 % HW) $(5 ,555 .55 ) $(1111 ) , .11

Class B (11 % HW) $(1111 ) , .11 $(111 ) .11

Class C (11 % HW) $(5 ,555 .55 ) $(11 ) .11

Class D ( % 11 HW) $(1111 ) , .11 $(11 ) .11

Class E (11 % HW) $(111 ) .11 $(111 . )

Integrated Modular

(Launch @ $5,000/kg, 95% Reliability)

Mission Cost-Risk

Redundant, modular subsystems and interfaces critical to reliability of reusable in-space systems. May also reduce non-recurring costs.
October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Cost Estimation Relationship(s)

@ ~$200,000/kg and greater One-of-a-kind Systems (e.g., ISS) @ ~$40,000-$ 80,000/kg Typical On order 5-10 Units GEO Constellation Satellites 16000 @ ~$40,000/kg for ~20 Units B-2 Bombers

Mass Produced Aerospace Systems

Price per Pound, Aerospace Systems ($/kg)

14000

(System Purchased Hardware Costs Only)

12000 @ ~$10,000/kg for 125 IRIDIUM Constellation Satellites 10000

When assessing manufacturing in Large Lot Sizes, Space Systems/Subsystems should be cost-estimated according to this type of curve

ASSERTION:

8000

6000

This suggests a strategic line of attack on the challenge of Affordable Space Systems

4000

@ ~$4,000/kg for ~324 TELEDESIC Constellation Satellites

2000

@ <$1,000/kg for >1000 Boeing 747s 1500

50
October 2003

250

500

750

1000

1250

Number Aerospace Systems Manufactured/Sold

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Why Autonomous / Intelligent Systems? Reduced Ops Costs

TOTAL NUMBER OF Beyond LEO MISSIONS/YEAR

Parametric Comparison of Levels of Staffing

Assumes a Personnel Cost of $111 / Full-Time Equivalent , 111 Includes Operations and Supporting Engineering, etc.

1 1

Opera tions @ 11 ,111 People

1
e.g., ~1Beyond LEO Missions Every Year Opera tions @ 1111 , People Opera tions @ 1111 , People

R ange of Interest
Opera tions @ 111 People Opera tions @ 1111 , People

~1Beyond LEO Mission Every Year

1 1

11 1

555 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 LOWER LIMIT ON OPERATIONS COST PER MISSION ($,M)

[DUE TO MISSION OPERATIONS PERSONNEL COSTS ONLY]

11 1

Intelligent systems critical to low recurring operations costs.

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Why High Energy Space Systems? Reduced Initial Mass in LEO

Parametric Comparison of Major Options

> 400 mT 350 mT

Initial Mass in LEO

300 mT 250 mT 200 mT 150 mT 100 mT 50 mT Apollo-Type Expendable, Chemical, with Direct Entry Sustainable Reusable, with High Energy Modular Excessive Mass Reusable, with Chemical Propulsion

High-energy electric propulsion critical to reducing excessive propellant mass of reusable architectures.
October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Why Pre-Deploy Logistics/Propellants? Performance

Parametric Comparison of Major Options

15 mT

Pre-Deployment

Pre-Deployment

Pre-Deployment

Payload

10 mT

5 mT None MEO and GEO

None

None

Libration Points

Lunar Orbit

Pre-Deployment of Logistics/Propellants critical to Timely-Payload Delivery performance for reusable architectures.

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Go Anywhere in the Earths Neighborhood

Lunar Surface S-E L1
V High-T ~ 1111 , m/s V High-T V High-T ~ 1111 , m/s V High-T
~ 1111 , m/s

Other Benefits

S-E L1

Mapping Delta-Velocities in the Earth s Neighborhood

V High-T

LLO

~ 111 m/s V Low-T ~ 111 m/s

V ~ 11111 -1 m/s

E-M L1
V High-T ~ 1111 , m/s V Low-T ~ 1111 , m/s V High-T ~ 1111 m/s V Low-T ~ 3 .333 m/s V High-T ~ 1111 , m/s V Low-T ~ 1111 , m/s

~ 1111 , m/s V Low-T ~ 3 ,333 m/s

GEO
V ~ 111 m/s

V High-T ~ 3 ,333 m/s V Low-T ~ 1111 , m/s V High-T ~ 1111 , m/s V Low-T ~ 1111 , m/s
LTO Lunar Transfer Orbit LLO Low Lunar Orbit SE L1 Sun-Earth Libration Point L1 EM L1 Earth-Moon Libration Point L1 GEO Geostationary Orbit GTO GEO Transfer Orbit LEO Low Earth Orbit
September 1111

GTO

LEO
V ~11 km/s
Working Notes EML1 trans-lunar trajectory to Lunar Orbit Insertion Deorbit & Landing Total ~555 m/s ~ 111 m/s ~5555 m/s ~1111 m/s

Pre-Decisional / Internal Use Only

Earth
HRE_1111 _Mankins_ 1 1

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 1

Candidate Applications / Missions

What capabilities can the Reusable Injection Stage and SEP Stage provide to other potential missions?
Reusable Injection Stage Specs*
Dry Mass = 5,240 kg (no landing gear) Propellant Capacity = 29,217 kg Isp = 460 s Propulsive Capture for LEO Return Starting/Return Orbit: LEO, 500 km, 28.5o Mission Max Payload Capability w/ No Refueling
178 kg 793 kg 2,793 kg 2,805 kg 3,254 kg 28,135 kg 15,733 kg 17,794 kg 33,015 kg 44,170 kg 46,259 kg

Other Benefits

SEP Stage Specs*

Dry Mass = 10,000 kg (Xe tankage not included) Propellant Capacity = 19,151 kg Isp = 3,000 s Max. Power = 500 kW Starting/Return Orbit: LEO, 500 km, 28.5o
Injection Stage Capabilities to Various C1 s
1 1

Max Payload Capability w/ Refueling

13,561 kg 13,993 kg 15,437 kg 15,445 kg 15,778 kg N/A 27,775 kg 36,438 kg 46,971 kg 48,967 kg
Nominal Payload Mass (1111 , kg)

DoD Mid-Inclination Orbit Reusable (1) GEO Payload Deployment Injection Stage Lunar L1 Halo Orbit Lunar Orbit GPS Orbit GEO Transfer Orbit Lunar Surface Cargo Delivery(2) Trans-Mars Injection
(3)

1 1

Assumes RIS is Expended Assumes RIS is Expended

1 1

GEO
1 1

1 1

Lunar L1
1

Jupiter Mars

Escape

Pluto

SEP Stage(4)

Lunar Orbit Lunar L1 GEO Payload Deployment

1 -11

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

11 1

11 1

11 1

C1(km1 1 /s )

Notes:
1. 2. 3. 4. RIS returns to LEO via propulsive capture SEP delivers RIS and payload to lunar orbit. RIS is expended on lunar surface. Mars/Deep Space missions assume RIS is expended SEP Stage outbound trip times limited to no longer than 270 days

*Element Specs consistent with Space-based XTV / LEO Propulsive Capture / LOR Architecture

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

TSCT TIM#3: The Challenge

The following functional requirements are to be satisfied For the LOWEST (Life Cycle) COST DELIVER from KSC -- using one or more types of launchers
Not part of the detailed challenge for this meeting

To anywhere on the Lunar Surface where the sun shineswith precision (< 100 m error ellipse) and reliability (>99.5% reliability) A safe, functional PAYLOAD, (pressurized or un-pressurized) of
OPTION 1 -- 20 kg OPTION 2 -- 100 kg OPTION 3 -- 500 kg OPTION 4 -- 2,500 kg OPTION 5 -- 12,500 kg Either to 28.5, 400 km circular, or to ISS OPTION 1 -- 2 kg OPTION 2 -- 10 kg OPTION 3 -- 500 kg OPTION 4 -- 2,500 kg OPTION 5 -- 12,500 kg

AndRETURN to low Earth orbit A safe, functional PAYLOAD, (pressurized or un-pressurized) of

With a total stay on the Lunar surface of < 14 days

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

Architecture Design Alternatives Assessment

TSCT #3 Major Options

Energy Solar & Cryogens Nuclear & Cryogens Chemical Cryogens Chemical or Cryogen Solar or Nuclear & Cryogens Nuclear & Cryogens Various Options Infrastructure LEO, LLO Earth Return Propulsive to LEO
(SEP and Cryo)

DA -No.

Design Archicture Alternatives

Modular, Reusable, SEP/Cryogen Prop. NEP, Modular, Reusable Cryogen Prop Excursion Chemical / Expendable / Staged Cryogenic / Expendable/ Staged Chem-/CryoPropulsion with Aerobraking ISRU Enabled, Lunar Surface Refueling and Operations Expendable NTR Shuttle, Reusable Cryo-Prop Excursion Far-Term Space Infrastructures

Major Trade Space Options Matrix (Nominal)

Reusability All Reusable Partially Expendable Expendable Expendable Partially Expendable Reusable Partially Expendable Reusable Modularity Significant

ADA-1 ADA-1b ADA-2a ADA-2b ADA-2c ADA-3 ADA-4 ADA-5

October 2003

(or Libration)

(or Libration)

LEO, LLO

Propulsive
(Cryo)

Partial

None None LEO LEO, Lunar Surface None Significant

High-Energy Direct Entry High-Energy Direct Entry High-Energy Aerobraking to LEO Propulsive to LEO Propulsive to LEO Various Options

Minimal Minimal Partial

Significant

Moderate

(LLO, LEO, Lunar Surface)

TBD

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

TSCT #3 Architecture-Critical Technologies

DA -No.

Integrated Technology Assessment

Design Arch.
Modular, Reusable, SEP/Cryogen Prop. NEP, Modular, Reusable Cryogen Prop Excursion Chemical / Expendable / Staged Cryogenic / Expendable/ Staged Chem-/CryoPropulsion with Aerobraking ISRU Enabled, Lunar Surface Refueling and Operations Expendable NTR Shuttle, Reusable Cryo-Prop Excursion Far-Term Space Infrastructures
Re-startable, Reliable and Throttleable Cryo Propulsion Re-startable, Reliable and Throttleable Cryo Propulsion High-Energy Direct Entry High-Energy Direct Entry Re-startable, Reliable and Throttleable Cryo Propulsion Re-startable, Reliable and Throttleable Cryo Propulsion Re-startable, Reliable and Throttleable Cryo Propulsion Advanced, Robust Structural Tether Concepts

Architecture-Critical Technologies
Long-Lived, High-Power EM Propulsion Long-Lived, High-Power EM Propulsion Long-Lived, Long-Duration, High-Power, Low Low-Loss Mass Solar Cryogen Electric Power Mgt/Storage/xfer Long-Lived, High-Power, Low Mass NEP Long-Duration, Low-Loss Cryogen Mgt/Storage/xfer

DRA (ADA-1) ADA-1b ADA-2a ADA-2b ADA-2c ADA-3 ADA-4 ADA-5

Cryogen Management and Storage High-Energy Aerobraking at Earth Return Lunar Surface ISRU Systems Cryogen Management and Storage Lunar Surface Power Long-Duration, Low-Loss Cryogen Mgt/Storage/xfer Lunar Surface Infrastructure Systems High-Energy Aerobraking at Earth Return Lunar Surface Infrastructure Systems Long-Duration, Low-Loss Cryogen Mgt/Storage/xfer

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Electromagnetic Mass Drivers and/or MagLev

Plus Various

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

TSCT #3 Major Options Assessment

DA -No.

Architecture Design Alternatives

Design Archicture Alternatives

Modular, Reusable, SEP/Cryogen Prop. NEP, Modular, Reusable Cryogen Prop Excursion Chemical / Expendable / Staged Cryogenic / Expendable/ Staged Chem-/CryoPropulsion with Aerobraking ISRU Enabled, Lunar Surface Refueling and Operations Expendable NTR Shuttle, Reusable Cryo-Prop Excursion Far-Term Space Infrastructures

Success vis--vis Criteria

Low R&D Risk Applications Benefits Dev. Cost Ops Cost

ADA-1 ADA-1b ADA-2a ADA-2b ADA-2c ADA-3 ADA-4 ADA-5

October 2003

High risk and high cost during period chosen (2010-2020); cannot satisfy full range of applications nor provide full scope of benefits Cannot satisfy full range of applications, nor provide benefits comparable to other options; also, operations costs higher than reusable cases Cannot satisfy full range of applications, nor provide benefits comparable to other options; also, operations costs higher than reusable cases

High risk and high cost during period chosen (2010-2020)

Very high technical risk and high cost during period chosen (2010-2020)

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

DA -No.

Integrated Technology Assessment Common Technologies - Most Viable Architectures TIM#3

Design Arch. Multi-Architecture Common Technologies
Modular, Reusable, SEP/Cryogen Prop. NEP, Modular, Reusable Cryogen Prop Excursion Chemical / Expendable / Staged Cryogenic / Expendable/ Staged Chem-/CryoPropulsion with Aerobraking ISRU Enabled, Lunar Surface Refueling and Operations Expendable NTR Shuttle, Reusable Cryo- Prop Excursion Far-Term Space Infrastructures Reusable, Throttling Cryogenic Propulsion Attitude Control/GN&C

ADA-1 ADA-1b ADA-2a ADA-2b ADA-2c ADA-3 ADA-4 ADA-5

Intelligent Vehicle/System Health Management High-Energy Solar Electric Power Reliable on-Board PMAD Systems Cryogenic Fluid Management, Storage, Transfer Advanced Materials & Structural Concepts Space Environmental Effects Habitation, EVA and Bioastronautics Space Assembly, Maintenance and Servicing High-Power Electric/Electromagnetic Propulsion Thermal Protection Systems Hazard Avoidance and Precision Landing Computing and Communications

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

TSCT TIM #3 Case Study

October 2003

SRR_Page 2

Modular Elements

Meeting the Earth Neighborhood Transportation Challenge Synthesizing Concepts & Technologies (Proof of Principle)
O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5

Multiple Payload Classes Diverse Options

OPTION 2 (1?)
October 2003

OPTION 3

OPTION 4

OPTION 5

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

Team-X Session on 16 October 2003

Updated Guidelines - Day 2

P/L

P/L

V
V
Type 1 Case A Case B P/L Case C Rough P/L Case D
Rough 500 kg LOX/LH2 2,500 kg LOX/LH2 12,500 kg LOX/LH2 100 kg LOX/LH2

Type 2
500 kg Chem 2,500 kg Chem 12,500 kg Chem 100 kg Chem

V
Lunar Surface Polar Site, Illuminated, 14 day duration

P/L

= Payload = Vehicle

V
October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

Configuration Options for Excursion Vehicle(s) Team-X Cases and Additional Alternate Options
2,500 kg p/l Case 500 kg p/l Case Alternate 500 kg p/l Case Alternate 2,500 kg p/l Case

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 2

Reusable Cryogenic Transfer Vehicle (RCTV) Team-X Cases

R(SC Wet / Payload) Value ($/kg-payload)

40

2,000

Value (1,000 $/kg)

Leverage

30

1,500

20

1,000

10

500

20 kg
(N/A)

100 kg
(Rough)

500 kg

2,500 kg

12,500 kg
(N/A)

Payload

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 3

Advanced Systems, Technologies, Research and Analysis

October 2003

SRR_Page 3

Advanced Systems, Technologies, Research, and Analysis Strategic Technology Model for

ASTRA (1 of 2)

System Test, Launch & Operations

TRL 9 TRL 8 TRL 7

System/ Subsystem Development

Primary Emphasis of the ASTRA Road Maps

Advanced Development Programs CapabilityFocused Technology Development and Demo Programs

Applications Pull
System Specific

Flight Projects

Technology Demonstration

TRL 6
Technology Development

TRL 5 TRL 4

Research to Prove Feasibility

Research and Technology Base

Technology Push

TRL 3 TRL 2 TRL 1

e.g., SSE OBPR

Basic Technology Research

Basic Research

e.g., OAT, OBPR

e.g., SFE, SSE, ESE, OAT

e.g., Specific Flight Projects

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 3

Advanced Systems, Technologies, Research, and Analysis

Work Breakdown Structure ASTRA

Systems Integration, Analysis, Concepts & Modeling

Level 1: Top Tier Level 2: Strategic Themes

1.0

1.1 Program and Systems Integration 1.3 Advanced Concepts Studies 1.5 System and Infrastructure Modeling

1.2 Mission and Market Studies 1.4 Technology -Systems Analysis 1.6 Technology and Systems Verification and Validation

Advanced Technology Development

2.1 Self-Sufficient Space Systems 2.3 Habitation, Bioastronautics, and EVA 2.5 Surface Exploration and Expeditions 2.7 In Space Instruments and Sensors 2.2 Space Utilities and Power 2.4 Space Assembly, Maint., and Servicing 2.6 Space Transportation 2.8 Information and Communications

2.0

Systems-Level Technology Demonstrations

3.1 Technology Demo Definition Studies 3.3 High-Energy Space Systems Demos 3.5 SAMS Demos 3.2 Tech. Flt. Experiment Accommodations 3.4_Modular Space Platforms and Systems Demos 3.6 Lunar/Planetary Exploration Demos

3.0

Supporting Research and Technology

4.1 Advanced Materials 4.3 Power/Thermal Technology 4.5 Software, Computing, and Intelligence 4.7 Advanced Propulsion 4.9 Biological Research 4.2 Structures and Controls 4.4 Electronics and Sensors 4.6 Mobility and Manipulation 4.8 Basic Physical and Chemical Research 4.10 TBD

4.0

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 3

Strategic Investment Elements Focusing on Enabling Capabilities

Where Necessary, Technology Flight Experiments

Many, Diverse Competing Technologies at a Low Level of Funding -- All Addressing Approximately the same functional capabilities... Starting Point: TRL 3/4

Technology Ready to Support Decisions to Proceed with Development of The Desired Capability...

Several Competing Technologies at a Moderate Level of Funding Goal: TRL 5

1 or 2 Best Candidate Technologies at a Substantial Level of Funding

In Most Cases

Goal: TRL 6

Where Needed 1 or 2 Best Candidate Systems-Level Technology Flight Demos at a Significant Level of Funding

Goal: TRL 7

Technologies Dropped or Deferred to Future Application Opportunities

Number of Competing Technologies Being Funded Total Resources Being Invested in a specific technology

TIME
October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 3

Conclusion

October 2003

SRR_Page 3

What Might Be Accomplished?

Increased Available Power at Reduced Cost for Earth Neighborhood Space Systems

Space Science Missions

Communications Satellites

Extension of Effective Operational Lifetime for Systems Beyond Low Earth Orbit

2- to 5- Fold Factors-of Improvement in Several Key Earth Neighborhood Space Systems Capabilities*

Improvement in Fuel Efficiency for Transportation in the Earths Neighborhood

New Infrastructures

Reduction in Operations and Logistics Costs

* In conjunction with key Collaborative Investments

Increase in the Scale of Systems Beyond LEO

(without New Launchers)

What ELSE Might be Accomplished??

October 2003

National Defense Systems

New Industries

TSCT_Overview_Page 3

Keeping Perspective

October 2003

TSCT_Overview_Page 3