1 SPST Briefing for Code R Associate Administrator and Senior Management November 9, 2001 NASA Headquarters

1

SPST Briefing for Code RAssociate Administrator

and Senior Management

November 9, 2001NASA Headquarters

2

Introduction

Walt Dankhoff

SPST Executive Sec

3

Agenda Introduction Walt Dankhoff , SAIC

SPST Executive Sec

Air / Space Transportation Pete Mitchell Analogies Study SAIC, Lead

Development of Advanced RLV Russel Rhodes System Development Algorithm NASA-KSC, Lead

Bottom-Up Identification of Dr. Jay Penn Technology Solutions to Aerospace Corp, Lead RLV Development Impediments

Collaborative Prioritization of Dr. Pat Odom Bottom-Up Technologies SAIC, Lead

4

Agenda (concluded)

Planned Tasks for FY 2002 SPST Activities

Discussion and Feedback All

5

Purpose of Review• Provide an Understanding of the value of past and

continued support of the SPST to MSFC and NASA.• Maximize the Value of continuing support of the SPST to

enhance the achievement of safe, dependable and affordable space transportation goals.

• Specifically review the activities and products produced by four unique SPST teams that supported these goals in the past year.

• Highlight the value of proposed continuing support activities by the SPST Teams.

• Stimulate “discussion and feedback” from NASA Headquarters management regarding continuing SPST support of Advanced Space Transportation (Gen2 and Gen3).

6

Strengths of the SPST• Team consists of senior members with broad diversified

experience in Space Transportation and Propulsion. Addresses Space Transportation total life cycle from R&D to operations.

• It has representation from industry, government (NASA and USAF), universities, entrepreneurs and private non-profit firms.

• Has a proven track record – over ten years. • Developed and employed unique (out of the box) processes for

assessing and prioritizing space transportation systems, vehicles and technologies.

• Flexible – It can be very responsive. No time required for formal agreements or contracts.

• Has common objectives - i.e. meet national space transportation goals, Gen2, Gen3 etc.

• It represents a win-win situation – benefit to “customers” and “participants”

7

Membership Diversity

The SPST is composed of the premiere people in the USA from the Aerospace Propulsion Industry, Aerospace Vehicle Industry, Not for profit Aerospace Industry, US Government and Academia. This group has been in existence for a decade and the membership has floated as

people retire and develop other interest and the membership has stayed around 150 persons.

Academia 19US Government

NASA 68USAF 7US Army 1DOT 1OMB 1

Liquid Propulsion IndustryAerojet 3P & W 4Rocketdyne 3

Solid Propulsion IndustryAerojet 1Atlantic Research` 2Thiokol 4Primex 2

Aerospace Vehicle IndustryBoeing 10Lockheed Martin 11TRW 3Kelly 1

Pioneer 1Aerospace Subsystems/Components 27Not-for-profit Aerospace 4Netherlands 1Space Transportation Association 1 Total 175

8

Potential “Customers”

• Customers are defined as an organization that has expressed a need for specific SPST support. Note: results of SPST task/activity provided to the customer – but available to other members of the space transportation community.

• In the past “customers” have been broadly NASA, more specifically – NASA HQS and MSFC.

• Most recently, focused on MSFC/ASTP – RLV Gen3

• Products equally applicable/useful to RLV Gen2.

• Other potential customers are USAF/RL, FAA and Universities – (note Universities mostly working on advanced technologies) consistent with SPST long-range vision.

9

Air / Space TransportationAnalogies Study

Pete Mitchell, Lead

10

SPST Study of Analogies Between Air and Space Transportation Development

• Task initiated during SPST meeting with Art Stephenson, MSFC Director and staff

• Focus of task is aircraft propulsion (jet engines) and rocket propulsion systems (Aero/Astro)

• Study elements:– Establish task team (regular telecons).– Perform literature search (AIAA support).– Define correlations and differences including design approaches,

test requirements, operating life, flight rates, cost drivers, etc.– Focus on lessons learned from Aero that would benefit Space

Transportation.– Document study results and present to MSFC Management.

11

Aviation/Space Analog TeamGovernment and Industry Representatives

• Dave Christensen, Lockheed-Martin

• Benjamin Donahue, Boeing

• Walt Dankhoff, SPST Exec Sec

• Harry Erwin, NASA-JSC

• William Escher, SAIC

• James French, Orbital Science Corp

• Jerry Grey, AIAA

• Roger Herdy, Micro Craft

• Larry Hunt, NASA-LRC

• Pete Mitchell, SAIC (team leader)• Carl Rappoport, FAA (now retired)

• William Taylor, NASA-GRC

12

Jet Engine and Rocket Propulsion Data Comparison

Comm. Jet Engine

Mil. Fighter Engine

SSME

Gen-2

XLR-99 (X-15)

Thrust, Klb

100 35 512 <1,000 60

Thrust/Weight

~5.5 >7.5 ~70 ~70 65

Weight, lbs

16,000 4,000 7,000 <15,000 913

Cost

Base <Base 5 – 10X <5 – 10X ---

Flights/Yr

~500 <300 ~3 – 5 20 ~40

Design Life, Flights

8,000 4,000 100 – 240

100 20 – 40

Combuster Press., psia

~500 ~500 ~3,000 <4,000 600

Max Turb Temp, Deg F

~2,500 >2,500 <2,000 <2,000 1,350

Accel Time, Idle-to-Max

>5 <5 ~1 ~1 ~3

Flt Time @ Max Power

5% 20% 95% 95% ~50%

Cruise Power Level

25% 25% 104% 100% 50%

13

Development PhaseDetail Design Specification Requirements

for Rocket & Jet Engines Military Fighter Engine Liquid Rocket Engine

Design Life* 4000 EFH (Cold Parts) & 2000 EFH (Hot Parts)

27,000 Sec. & 60 Starts

Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF) Life*

4000 TAC Cycles (For Hot Section)

240 Engine Missions

High Cycle Fatigue 10 Million Cycles (Infinite) 10 Million Cycles

Safety Factors* 2.0 For LCF & >1.0 All Other 1.4 for Ult. & 1.1 for Yield

Pressure Vessel Design 2.0 Times Max OP 1.2 Times 2-Sigma Max

Material Properties 3-Sigma 3-Sigma

Critical Speed Margin Damping Required 20% W/O Damping

Rotor Burst Speed 20% Margin 20% Margin

Mission Duration* 3 Hours 520 Seconds

* Major differences are design life, LCF requirements, safety factors & mission duration

14

Right Design Choices Early on Count Most

15

Progressive Reduction in Critical Jet Engine Failures

16

Fighter Engine Data

TECHNOLOGY HAS IMPROVED PERFORMANCE & SAFETY

THRUST/ SAFETYENGINE THRUST WEIGHT WEIGHT CLASS A

LBF LBM MISHAP

J79 17,000 3695 4.6 9.48

J57 13,750 3870 3.6 5.61

J75 26,500 5,960 4.4 4.56

TF41 15,000 3204 4.7 1.86

F100-200 22,600 3190 7.1 1.89

F110-100 28,000 3289 8.5 1.61

F100-220 27,000 3405 7.9 1.03

F110-129 29,000 3980 7.3 1.73

F100-229 29,100 3745 7.7 <1.00

Source: AFSC Database & Source Book, Aviation Week & Space Technology, January 1996

The jet engine industry has increased performance & reduced weight, while improving reliability, maintainability, and operability in advanced engines.

17

Development of Advanced RLVSystem Development Algorithm

Russel Rhodes, Lead

18

SpaceLiner 100 Propulsion Task ForceFunctional Requirements Sub-Team Membership

• Russel Rhodes, NASA-KSC - Lead

• Uwe Hueter, NASA-MSFC

• Walt Dankhoff, SAIC • Bryan DeHoff, Aero.Tech.Serv. • Glenn Law, Aerospace Corp. • Mark Coleman, CPIA• Robert Bruce, NASA-SSC• Ray Byrd, Boeing-KSC • Clyde Denison, NGC• Bill Pannell, NASA-MSFC• Pete Mitchell, SAIC

• Dan Levack, Boeing/Rocketdyne • Bill Escher, SAIC • Pat Odom, SAIC • David Christensen, LMCO • Jim Bray, LM-MAF • Tony Harrison, NASA-MSFC• Keith Dayton/John Robinson, Boeing

Co • Andy Prince, MSFC• Carey McCleskey, NASA-KSC• Jay Penn, Aerospace Corp.• John Hutt, NASA-MSFC

•CUSTOMER PROVIDING EVALUATION INPUT:

Uwe Hueter, NASA-MSFC

19

Introduction Systems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability- Supporting 3rd Generation RLV/SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements-

• The Functional Requirements Team of the national Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST) is developing the NASA ASTP 3rd Generation RLV “System Algorithm” at NASA’s request

• The System Algorithm is a network flow diagram designed to provide management insight into the relative influence that system operations and programmatic attributes will have on the achievement of program goals

• This Influence Diagramming technique is used to construct and numerically exercise a system development algorithm

20

Algorithm Development ProcessSystems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability- Supporting 3rd Generation RLV/SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements-

• Define program goals/key objectives• Establish the key system operations and and programmatic attributes of the program that will determine the successful achievement of the goals• Identify the primary influence interrelationships among the attributes and between the attributes and the goals• Use an influence (network) diagram to model the attributes and goals linkages• Load in the attribute weightings• Exercise the model (algorithm) to provide insight

into limitations and adjustments required to make it usable for program planning and management

21

ConclusionsSystems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability- Supporting 3rd Generation RLV/SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements-

• SPST Algorithm provides risk management insight into the key program objectives by assessing the benefit of R&D investment strategies

• The Systems Algorithm is a network flow diagram designed to provide management insight into the relative influence that system operations and programmatic attributes will have on the achievement of program goals

• Algorithm can be used for development of other Space transportation System applications• Application specific inputs are needed

• Customer objective weights• R&D investment time frame

• The Algorithm tool provides visibility of the impacts of changes in investment strategies on key objectives during all phases of the program

• R&D including the X-vehicle• Industry DDT&E• Commercial Operations

• The model is very good for Choosing R&D investment strategies• Relative magnitude of one investment scenario to another• Good tool to judge changes to R&D program• Key attributes/sub-attributes flow-down to the measurable criteria are those used in the Technology Workshop evaluation

22

23

24

25

26

LOW DDT&E ACQUISITION

COST

10,000 X

SAFER

OPERABLE

LOW RECURRING

COSTRESPONSIVE

LOW NON-RECURRING

COST

INVESTORS INCENTIVE

LOW LIFE

CYCLE COST

SAFE

3/22/01

DEPENDABLEINHERENT

RELIABILITY

DUAL USE POTENTIAL

LOW COST R&D

BENEFIT FOCUSED

SHORT SCHEDULE

TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

LOW RISK DDT&E

SHORT SCHEDULE

IDENTIFYING AND INTEGRATING TOP-LEVEL SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

R&D

DDT&E

OPERS

OPERS

OPERS

COST FOCUS

ATTRIBUTES KEY

LOW RISK R&D

R&D ATTRTIBUTES

DDT&E ATTRIBUTES

OPERATIONS ATTRIBUTES

Systems Approach to Dependable, Responsive, Safe, and Affordable Space Transportation - Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -

L I

F E

C

Y C

L E

C

O S

T

NO

N-R

EC

UR

RIN

G IN

VE

ST

ME

NT

GEN3

GOALS

100XCHEAPER

COST,$/LB

FLEET

PURCHASE

27

Operational Phase Attributes Weight

Affordable / Low Life Cycle Cost 14.39 Min. P/L Cost Impact on Launch Sys. 2.43 Low Recurring Cost . Low Cost Sensitivity to Flt. Growth 1.62 . Operation and Support 7.60 Initial Acquisition 0.00 Vehicle/System Replacement 2.74

Dependable 22.21 Highly Reliable (hardware) 3.80 Intact Vehicle Recovery 2.53 Mission Success 0.68 Operate on Command 7.60 Robustness 3.80 Design Certainty 3.80

Responsive 45.41 Flexible 1.22 . Resiliency 2.74 . Launch on Demand 1.22 Capacity 1.22 Operable (Operations) (39.01) . Process Verification 2.53 . Auto Sys. Health Verification 7.60 . Auto Sys. Corrective Action

7.60 . Ease of Vehicle/Sys. Integration 1.22 . Maintainable

4.86 . Simple7.60 . Easily

Supportable 7.60

Programmatic Criteria

Program Acquisition Phase (DDT&E) 100 . Cost

25 . Schedule 15 . Investor Incentive

25 . Risk 25 . Technology Options

10

Technology R&D Phase 100 . Cost

30 . Benefit Focused 30 . Schedule

15 . Risk15

. Dual Use Potential 10


Operational Phase Attributes (cont) Weight

Safety 10.12 Vehicle Safety 2.53 Personnel Safety 2.53 Public Safety 2.53 Equipment and Facility Safety 2.53

Environmental Compatibility 7.91 Minimum Impact on Space Environment 2.43 Minimum Effect on Atmosphere 2.74 Minimum Environ. Impact All Sites 2.74

Public Support 0.00 Benefit GNP 0.00 Social Perception 0.00

SPST ETO-ATTRIBUTES REFERENCE TABULATION REUSABLE EARTH-TO-ORBIT

2/22/01

DATA REF: SL 100 designCriteriaMatrix (1-27-00).xls SpaceDesCrit(ETO reusable)AND Attributes vs Programmatics Pareto SPST / SL-100 Space propulsion (6_14)• ‘ZEROS AMENDMENT’ Jan ‘01 NOTE: Color code same as preceding charts

Operational Effectiveness Criteria

28

SPST DEPENDABLE• HIGHLY RELIABLE H/W• INTACT VEHICLE RCVRY• MISSION SUCCESS• OPERATE ON COMMAND• ROBUSTNESS• DESIGN CERTAINTY

+OPERABLE/COST CNTRBTN• AUTO SYS CRCTV ACTION• PROCESS VERIFICATION• SIMPLE• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

OPERABLE• AUTO SYS HLTH VERFCTN• EASE VEH/SYS INTGRTN• MAINTAINABLE• EASILY SUPPORTABLE• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR

+DEPENDABLE CNTRBTN• SPST DEPENDABLE• OPER & SUPORT LABOR• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

RESPONSIVE• FLEXIBLE• LAUNCH ON DEMAND• RESILIENCY• CAPACITY• LOW COST SENSTVTY TO FLT RATE GROWTH• MIN COST IMPACT OF P/L ON SYSTEM• VEHICLE REPLACEMENT

+OPERABLE CNTRBTN• AUTO SYS HLTH VERFCTN• EASE VEH/SYS INTGRTN• MAINTAINABLE• EASILY SUPPORTABLE• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR

+DEPENDABLE CNTRBTN• SPST DEPENDABLE• SIMPLE• AUTO SYS CRCTV ACTN• PROCESS VERIFICATION• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

2/27/01

IDENTIFYING THE FOUR KEY OPERATIONAL ATTRIBUTE CONTENT


100XCHEAPER

COST,$/LB

10,000 X

SAFER

OPERABLE

LOW RECURRING

COSTRESPONSIVE

LOW LIFE

CYCLE COST

SAFE

DEPENDABLEINHERENT

RELIABILITY

DDT&E

DEPENDABLE

OPERABLE

SAFETY

OPERATIONS ATTRIBUTES

GEN3

GOALS

DDT&E

SAFETY• PERSONNEL SAFETY• PUBLIC SAFETY• VEHICLE SAFETY• EQPT & FAC SAFETY

+DEPENDABLE CNTRBTN• SPST DEPENDABLE• SIMPLE• AUTO SYS CRCTV ACTN• PROCESS VERIFICATION• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

+ENVIRONMENT CNTRBTN• MIN EFFECT ON ATMSPHR• MIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ALL SITES• MIN IMPACT ON SPACE ENVIR

FLEETPURCHASE

ATTRIBUTES COLOR KEY

COST FOCUS

29 2/20/01

Systems Approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability - Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -

SYS RPLCMT 2.74 / 2

PROCS VRFCTN 2.53

HI REL H/W 3.80

MISSION SUCCESS 0.68

RELIABLEHARDWARE

ROBUST DESIGN

SIMPLE

(45.11 - Components sum)

SIMPLE 7.60

PROCESSVERIFICATION

INTCT VEH RCVRY 2.53

ROBUST 3.80DSGN CRTNTY 3.80

AUTO SYS CORCT ACTN 7.60

OPERATE ON COMMAND 7.60

CREW ESCAPE

REUSABLE ETO SPST WEIGHTS

INFRSTRCTR. OPS.

OPRTN & SUPRT 7.60 / 2

SPST ‘DEPENDABLE’

• HIGHLY RELIABLE H/W 3.80

• INTACT VEH RECOVERY 2.53

• MISSION SUCCESS 0.68

• OPERATE ON COMMAND 7.60

• ROBUSTNESS 3.80

• DESIGN CERTAINTY 3.80 . SPST SUM 22.21

INFLUENCE CONTRIBUTION

• AUTO SYS CORRECTIVE. ACTION 7.60

• PROCESS. VERIFICATION 2.53

• SIMPLE 7.60

• OPERATION & SUPPORT. (LABOR) 7.60 / 2

• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT 2.74 / 2

DEPENDABLE TOTAL 45.11

INHERENT RELIABILITYDEPENDABLE

SPST ATTRIBUTES. & WEIGHTINGS

AFFORDABLE /LOW LCC 14.4

DEPENDABLE 22.2

RESPONSIVE 45.4

SAFETY 10.1

ENVIRONMENTAL 7.9

SUM = 100.0

ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO DEPENDABLE

30


Correlation Value Raw Score Benefit Criteria

9 579.799 # of components with demonstrated high reliability (+)9 533.855 System margin (+)9 473.34 Design Variability (-)9 438.656 Technology readiness levels (+)9 379.602 Mass Fraction required (-)9 322.371 # of element to element interfaces requiring engineering control (-)9 267.22 Ave. Isp on refer. trajectory (+)9 241.445 # of modes or cycles (-)9 226.854 Margin, thrust level / engine chamber press(+)9 223.911 Margin, mass fraction (+)9 199.197 Margin, ave. specific impulse (+)9 104.094 Ideal delta-V on ref. trajectory (-)3 633.744 # of active systems required to maintain a safe vehicle (-)3 600.679 # of different propulsion systems (-)3 588.672 # of systems with BIT BITE (+)3 566.944 # of active components required to function including flight operations (-)3 559.8 # of systems requiring monitoring due to hazards (-)3 523.846 % of propulsion system automated (+)3 506.522 % of propulsion subsystems monitored to change from hazard to safe (+)3 499.832 # of unique stages (flight and ground) (-)3 498.679 # of in-space support sys. req'd for propulsion sys. ( - ) 3 491.89 # of active on-board space sys. req'd for propulsion ( - ) 3 489.86 On-board Propellant Storage & Management Difficulty in Space (-) 3 435.823 # of different fluids in system (-)3 427.162 # of propulsion sub-systems with fault tolerance (+)3 383.499 ISP Propellant transfer operation difficulty (resupply) (-) 3 374.19 # of expendables (fluid, parts, software) (-)3 301.213 # of umbs. req'd to Launch Vehicle ( - ) 3 293.455 # of engines (-)3 284.236 Resistance to Space Environment (+) 3 263.781 # of active engine systems required to function (-)3 211.105 # of engine restarts required (-)3 209.898 Transportation trip time (-)3 138.055 # of major systems required to ferry or return to launch site (plus logistics support) (-)3 87.006 # of processing steps to manufacture (-)

Design Certainty

31



9 820.0 TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)9 750.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)9 750.0 TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)9 640.0 TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)9 630.0 TRD-Current TRL (+)9 600.0 TRD-cost to reach TRL -6 (-)9 550.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)9 400.0 TRD-# of new facilities required costing over $2M (-)3 390.0 TRD-#related technology databases available (+)3 210.0 TRD-total annual funding by item at peak budget requirements (-)


9 820.0 TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)9 750.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)9 750.0 TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)9 600.0 TRD-cost to reach TRL -6 (-)3 640.0 TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)3 630.0 TRD-Current TRL (+)3 550.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)3 390.0 TRD-#related technology databases available (+)3 210.0 TRD-total annual funding by item at peak budget requirements (-)


9 820.0 TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)9 750.0 TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)9 640.0 TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)9 630.0 TRD-Current TRL (+)3 750.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)3 600.0 TRD-cost to reach TRL -6 (-)3 550.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)3 400.0 TRD-# of new facilities required costing over $2M (-)3 390.0 TRD-#related technology databases available (+)


9 820.0 TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)9 750.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)9 640.0 TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)9 630.0 TRD-Current TRL (+)9 550.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)9 390.0 TRD-#related technology databases available (+)3 750.0 TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)3 400.0 TRD-# of new facilities required costing over $2M (-)


9 180.0 TRD-# multiuse applications including space transportation (+)3 750.0 TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)3 750.0 TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)3 390.0 TRD-#related technology databases available (+)

Technology R & DCost

Benefit Focused

Schedule

Risk

Dual use Potential

32

Bottom-Up Identification of Technology Solutions to

RLV Development Impediments

Jay Penn, Lead

33

Integrated Technology Team ParticipantsJay Penn – Team Lead Aerospace CorporationDan Levack Boeing/RocketdyneRussel Rhodes KSCJohn Robinson BoeingBill Pannell MSFCBruce Fleming LM Space SystemsBryan DeHoff Aerospace Tech. ServicesCarey McCleskey KSCClyde Denison Northrup/GrummanConstantine Salvador Pratt & WhitneyDavid Christensen LM Space SystemsGlenn Law Aerospace CorporationJohn Olds Georgia TechMike Sklar Boeing/KSCPat Odom SAICWalter Dankhoff SAIC

34

NASA / ASTPGarry Lyles, Director

National Space PolicyStrategic Direction

SPST SteeringCommittee

SL100 FunctionalRequirements

Team # 1 Russ Rhodes, KSC

Assessment Criteria

TransportationArchitectures

Team # 2 John Robinson, Boeing

ProductsTo

MSFC / ASTP

Technologies Assessment& Prioritization Workshop

Team # 4 Dr. Pat Odom, SAIC

Technologies IdentificationPreparation of White Papers

Team # 3 Dan LevackBoeing, Rocketdyne

Programming Factors

“Bottoms Up” AssessmentTeam # 5 Jay Penn, AeroIdentify “Impediments”

Brainstorm “Solutions”• System Concepts

• Technologies

Work Flow Plan

35

Key ITT Findings/Observations

• 22 High Leverage Technologies Identified• Many not be exciting but address areas where large improvements are

required• Technologies are required by all envisioned concepts (cross-cutting)• Key technologies focused on meeting and design criteria in areas of

reliability, safety and operability• Technology solutions suggest that we re-think overall design processes

• E.g. increased emphasis on synergies/reductions of subsystems• 13 New Processess Identified

• Make Operability, Reliability, Safety and Operations cost as much a part of the design process as performance

• Funding Effort Required to Develop Described Processes (Formalized)• 11 Key Studies Outlined – More to Come

• Study identification process far from complete• Funding will eventually be required to 1) more completely define studies

to be performed and to complete studies

36

Key ITTFindings/Observations

• SPST now sees ITT as high value activity• Numerous impediments to why technology solutions to Design Criteria

Not Implemented• Must be assessed/understood in context of technology/concept solutions

• Existing Paradigms (Need to be challenged)• Heritage/Implementation costs• Experience base/systems engineering to evaluate does not exist• It’s not fun or glamorous!• A structured requirements and traceability process for key attribute

criteria doesn’t exist• Operability (access, inspection, reduction of operations activities)• Reliability (functional redundancy, elimination of failure modes,

e.g. critically 1 failures)• Not evaluated by cost/benefit or maximum leverage

• Detailed quantitative analysis required (at flight/ground systems level)

37

Collaborative Prioritization of Bottom-Up Technologies

Pat Odom, Lead

38

Introduction and Background

• The SPST has provided propulsion technology assessment and prioritization support to the NASA ASTP for more than three years

> In-space propulsion technologies (Apr’ 1999)> 3rd Gen RLV top-down technologies (Apr’ 2000)

• In April 2001 a national SPST workshop prioritized potential bottom-up technology solutions for impediments to achieving 3rd Gen RLV program goals (using the same evaluation criteria as 3rd Gen RLV top-down process to allow merging results)

• The results apply to 2nd Gen systems as well

39

Candidate Technology Areas

The SPST bottom-up assessment processIdentified 26 candidate technology solutionAreas organized into 6 propulsion related categories:

1. IVHM Technologies2. Margin Technologies3. Operations Technologies4. Safety Technologies5. Thermal Control Technologies6. Technologies to Reduce No. Systems

40

Workshop ParticipantsProgrammatic Evaluators Technical EvaluatorsBen Donahue Drew DeGeorge Dr. John OldsBoeing AFRL Georgia Tech

Vic Giuliano Dr. Clark Hawk Dr. Jay PennPratt&Whitney UAH Aerospace Corp

Dave Goracke Larry Hunt W. T. PowersBoeing Rocketdyne NASA LRC NASA MSFC

Dr. John Hutt Dave McGrath John RobinsonNASA MSFC Thiokol Boeing

Pete Mitchell Dr. Charles Merkle Costante SalvatorSAIC UTSI Pratt&Whitney

Phil Sumrall Scott Miller Larry TalafuseNASA Hqs General Dynamics Lockheed Martin

An Industry, Government and Academia Team

41

Collaborative AHP Data Entry

PivotTechnology

Each ofCandidate

Technologies

Technologiesfor Given Technology

Category

PairwiseComparisonsAgainst Each

Criterion

EvaluationCriteria

Each Evaluator

Strength ofComparisonson Saaty Scale

SAIC ITIPSSoftware

CollaborativePrioritization

Results

42

43

44

45

46

Summary and Conclusions

• The SPST workshop provided roughly 10,000 data inputs to the propulsion technology prioritization computations

• The 26 potential technology solution areas were successfully assessed and prioritized

> Against 25 technical and 19 programmatic criteria> Separately against the potential to increase

system safety and decrease cost

• The crosscutting results apply to both 2nd and 3rd Gen RLV systems development

47

Summary and Conclusions

• Based on all 25 technical and 19 programmatic criteria, the highest priority technologies are those that:

1. Reduce number of RLV systems to be developed

2. Increase system margins

3. Simplify thermal control of the flight vehicle• Detail results are summarized in AIAA paper

2001-3983 (37th Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit)

48

Summary and Plans for FY 2002 SPST Activities

49

Consistent Findings and Conclusions

• Prior to Design and Development Phase1. Establish Aggressive Functional/Operational

Requirements• Long Life-Maximize Time Between Removals of Sub

Systems and Components for Replacement of Overhauls

• Minimize Ground Support Operations (Minimum “Turn Around Time”)

• Provide Automated Predictive System Health Verification and Maintenance Requirements (IVHM)

2. “Flow Down” Functional/Operational Requirements to Design Criteria and Technologies Needed to Satisfy Requirements

3. Conduct System Ground and Flight Tests to Demonstrate Maturity and Reduce Risks

50

Consistent Findings and Conclusions

• System Design and Development Phase1. Rigorously enforce all of the Functional/Operational

requirements2. Adhere to all of the design criteria3. Focus on Systems Dependability and Operability. At

least equal to focus on performance4. Use evolutionary approaches wherever possible.

Reduce risk from major revolutionary change.

51

Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002 1. Serve as an expert source of propulsion systems technology data

and design inputs to the ITAC and NASA In-House systems analyses of Third Generation Hypersonic RLV concepts

• Draw appropriate knowledgeable personnel together from the SPST membership to perform needed tasks when required

Reference: Recent task support for Chris Naftel (Marc Neely / new Systems Analysis Lead) to Determine Design Reference Missions sets for 3rd Generation RLV Hypersonic Program

• What are the characteristics that should be modeled?

• What values (Metrics) should be considered as reasonable and what range should be used for these metrics

52

Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002 2. Review past system studies to establish the applicability of the

groundrules, assumptions, input data, and results to ITAC systems analyses modeling and data standards

• Compare ground rules and assumptions used in past advanced

space transportation studies for relevancy to ITAC and In-House studies systems analyses

• Provide data to support upcoming NASA budget cycles and reviews

53

Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002

3. Identify and recommend system engineering and management processes needed to meet 3rd Gen goals

• Perform follow-on to the Bottom-Up Identification and Definition of

Third Generation Technology Investment Needs effort to include

both the R&D Technology and the DDT&E Acquisition phases for

further definition of the system engineering and management

processes

54


4. Expand the Air Space Analogy Studies

• Perform follow-on to the Air Space Analogy Studies for greater

insight into lessons learned from R&D investment toward DDT&E

and Operations improvements. Provide Identification and Definition

of Third Generation Technology Investment Needs effort to include

these lessons learned into both the R&D Technology and the

DDT&E Acquisition phases

55


5. Perform follow-on activities of the Space Systems Influence Algorithm in support of 2nd Gen goals

• Activities may be focused on education of customer use of tools and

value in smart decision making (how it works or provide

understanding of its development process)

56

Discussion and Feedback

Documents

1 SPST Briefing for Code R Associate Administrator and Senior Management November 9, 2001 NASA Headquarters