Paper - SmallSat 1999 Management Challenges

SSC99-IIA-4

Dave L. Callen 13th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

Management Challenges of Launching Multiple PayloadsFor Multiple Customers

Dave CallenTaurus Mission ManagerTaurus Program Office

Orbital Sciences Corporation21700 Atlantic Blvd

Dulles, VA 20166

Tele: (703) 406-5225Fax: (703) 406-3413

E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 1999 Orbital Sciences Corporation

SSC99-IIA-4


Permission Granted to the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellitesfor Reprint and Duplication

Abstract

Orbital has provided launch services for multiple satellites as a means to provide greater economy for access to space.These include satellites from NASA, DoD, commercial companies, universities, and foreign governments. Whilesatellite customers view shared launches as a means to achieve reduced launch costs, this approach adds many com-plexities that a traditional launch service provider does not have to address for a dedicated launch.

This paper will discuss some of the challenges associated with managing the mission planning activity and success-fully completing the process to deliver the satellites on-orbit. To illustrate these challenges, this paper addressesOrbital’s Taurus launches involving multiple payloads from different customers. Each of these missions involvesconsiderably different customer requirements as well as different launch vehicle configurations to accommodate thespacecraft.

Orbital’s approach to mission planning is to provide each customer a full complement of launch integration services.In satisfying multiple customers’ needs on a single launch, the management challenges are many and varied. Technicalissues, schedule compatibility, and even political issues must be satisfactorily addressed to successfully complete themission. This paper will describe the numerous challenges that Orbital’s Taurus team has faced working with multipleusers and how these issues have been and are being resolved.

Introduction

Orbital Sciences Corporation was founded in 1982 on thevision of “Bringing the Benefits of Space Down to Earth”by developing new applications in “Micro Space”technologies. Orbital’s vision was realized through theimplementation of a new paradigm by combininginnovative commercial business practices with emergingcutting edge technologies. One new paradigm exploitedby Orbital has been the continuous manifesting of multiplesatellites on an individual launch. These launches usethe company’s two small launch vehicles, the Pegasus andTaurus. Orbital has aggressively pursued and performedshared launches as a way of reducing the cost of spaceflight and enabling an ever increasing number of smallsatsto make their way to orbit. The benefits of this approachare worthwhile for the customer who is willing tocoordinate his mission requirements with that of a co-passenger payload in exchange for sharing the total launchcost. Unlike the approach taken by other launch systemsand launch team managers, Orbital’s approach providesgreater assurance to match customer requirements andschedules to accommodate the manifested payloadcustomers. To date, ten Orbital vehicles have launchedwith multiple payloads from different customers. Threemore are scheduled before the end of 2000. These includevarious combinations of customers from NASA, DoD,commercial companies, universities, and foreigngovernments. And while this approach does providesatellite customers a means to achieve reduced launchcosts, it does add many complexities that a traditionaldedicated launch service does not.

Pegasus Air-Launch Vehicle

During the nine years since it’s first flight, the Pegasuslaunch system has undergone many improvements toincrease it’s performance, reliability, and ability to supporta variety of multiple payload configurations. At the timeof this writing, Pegasus has celebrated 27 launches as theworkhorse to support a diverse group of customers. Thecurrent Pegasus XL vehicle is a fourth generation launchsystem incorporating many design improvements over theoriginal Standard configuration. These improvementsinclude larger solid rocket motors for increased payloadperformance to orbit, increased design margins to enhancereliability, and increased orbit injection accuracy throughthe incorporation of a state-of-the-art navigation system.The Pegasus XL vehicle is shown in Figure 1 and islaunched by Orbital’s L-1011 Carrier Aircraft. Themobility of the Pegasus Air Launch System has beendemonstrated by its ability to be launched from anyoperationally approved location. To date, Pegasus hasbeen launched from Vandenberg AFB in California,Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, the Eastern Range inFlorida, and the Canary Islands, a province of Spain offthe west coast of Africa. Launches from the KwajaleinAtoll are scheduled for later this year and early next year,further demonstrating the flexibility of the system.

The Pegasus configuration consists of a three stage,inertially guided, all solid propellant air launched vehicle.Additionally, an optional fourth liquid fueled stage maybe used to increase performance, increase orbit injectionaccuracy, or maneuver the vehicle to provide different

1

SSC99-IIA-4


orbits for multiple payloads as demonstrated during themost recent Pegasus launch. The vehicle uses a 50 inchdiameter fairing to protect the payloads during ascent.

Taurus Launch Vehicle

The Taurus launch system, Figure 2, was developed insupport of the Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAdministration’s (DARPA) requirement for a rapidreaction launch system capable of operating in an austere,unimproved environment. Taurus satisfied the rapidreaction requirement to be erected and launched from anunimproved site within a 14 day period. A complete setof transportable launch support equipment, includingpayload equipment accommodations, and a launch controlvan enables the Taurus system to easily operate from awide variety of launch facilities. Taurus launches to datehave been conducted from Vandenberg AFB in Californiabut the vehicle is also compatible for launches from theEastern Range in Florida. Launches from Kwajalein,Alaska, and Wallops Flight Facility can also beaccommodated to achieve specific orbits.

The Taurus launch vehicle is a second generation systemfeaturing a number of improvements from the originalvehicle. These improvements provide for a more robustand capable commercially available vehicle and theaddition of more configurations to accommodate multiple

payloads. The Taurus vehicle configuration shown inFigure 3 is a four stage, inertially guided, all solidpropellant ground launched vehicle. Taurus makes useof many of the components of the Pegasus vehicleincluding Stages 1, 2, and 3 and numerous electronic units,while adding other components such as Thiokol’s Castor120 motor and the higher capacity composite structure tomeet the needs of the Taurus users’ requirements. Taurus’92 inch diameter payload fairing provides the largestpayload envelope in its class while the 63 inch diameterfairing provides increased performance to orbit with asmaller payload envelope. To date, Taurus hassuccessfully performed three launches placing sevenpayloads in their prescribed orbit. Three more launchesare scheduled prior to September 2000. Four of these sixlaunches include multiple customer manifests.

Multiple Payload Vehicle Configurations

The Pegasus and Taurus launch vehicles can be configuredin a variety of ways to accommodate multiple payloadson a single launch. The two basic approaches for eachvehicle is to either (1) stack the spacecraft within thepayload volume such that the aft spacecraft is load bearing,or (2) provide an adapter structure that entirely supportsthe forward spacecraft, eliminating the aft spacecraftcompletely from the load path.

Method (1) is the approach most often used on Pegasusmissions and provides the maximum useable fairingvolume and performance to orbit for each spacecraft byeliminating the mass necessary for adapter structures.Taurus flew a stacked configuration of two DoD satelliteson it’s maiden flight in 1994. Design of the forwardspacecraft is straightforward but must conform to theassigned payload envelope, mass, and environments, aswell as the defined interface to the aft satellite. Theavailable mass for the aft payload is determined by thelaunch vehicle’s performance to the prescribed orbit lessthe forward payload and attach hardware. The load-bearing aft spacecraft interfaces directly with the launchvehicle and either the forward spacecraft or an adaptervia pre-determined interfaces. Representative stackedconfigurations for the Pegasus are shown in Figure 4.The more common configuration mates the forward andaft satellites directly, however the recent TERRIERS/MUBLCOM launch included an adapter between the aftMUBLCOM and forward TERRIERS satellites. In thiscase, MUBLCOM remains part of the load path with theforward satellite, however its mechanical interface waswith an Orbital-provided adapter rather than the forwardsatellite. The same holds true for the forward satelliteinterface. The first Taurus (T1) stacked configuration isillustrated in Figure 5 and shown in Figure 6. The launch

AIAA001

Interstage

Wing

Stage 1Motor

Stage 2 Motor

Stage 3Motor

PayloadFairing

AvionicsSection

Inertially-GuidedDigital Avionics

FinAft Skirt Assembly

Figure 1. Pegasus XL and L-1011 Carrier Aircraft.

Optional Hydrazine AuxiliaryPropulsion System

HAPS

Motor Separation System

AdvancedComposite

Materials

2

SSC99-IIA-4


provider oversees the mission integration process andperforms, mission integrated analyses such as coupledloads, thermal, EMI, vibroacoustic and others asnecessary. Given an Orbital adapter is not used to stackthe payloads, this approach requires interaction betweenthe two payloads to coordinate mechanical and electricalinterfaces - providing additional management challengesfor the launch provider not required when there is no directcoordination required between the customers. It shouldalso be noted this approach is not limited to just twosatellites. It is possible to stack more than two satellitesas demonstrated by the eight-stack of ORBCOMMs orthe two-stack or ORBCOMMs combined with the

Orbview-1 satellite launched on Pegasus. This approachmay be inappropriate in some cases. For example, if onesatellite is a foreign customer, technology transferrestrictions may make this approach impractical. Otherexamples include the case of a commercial satellite withextremely sensitive proprietary components or possiblya Defense Department satellite with classified or sensitiveaspects co-sharing with a commercial or foreign satellite.

Method (2). For aft spacecraft that are not designed towithstand and transmit structural loads from the forwardpayload, a dual payload adapter is used. For Pegasus,and the 92-inch fairing Taurus configuration, this adapter

Figure 2. Taurus Launch System.AIAA002

• Orbital Net• Countdown Net• Safety Net• Countdown Clock• Status/Alerts• Pad Video• VDLs• Prelaunch Telemetry

• Countdown Net• Mission Dir Net• Countdown Clock• Status/Alerts

• Pad Video• VDLs• Orbital Net• Prelaunch Telemetry

Launch Support Van

Launch Equipment Van• Countdown Clock • Status/Alerts• Prelaunch Telemetry

Taurus

Range Control Center

3

SSC99-IIA-4


is called the Dual Payload Attach Fitting (DPAF). The63-inch Taurus configuration uses a structure called theAft Payload Capsule (APC). These configurations areshown in Figures 4 and Figure 5, respectively. In eithercase, the structure provides independent load paths foreach satellite. The forward spacecraft loads aretransmitted around the aft spacecraft via the adapterstructure to the launch vehicle, thus avoiding any structuralinterface between the two payloads. Each satellite is alsoprovided an independent electrical interface. Thisapproach not only physically isolates the two payloads,

but also aids in minimizing the need for direct coordinationbetween customers. This results in fewer technical transferor classification issues as demonstrated by Orbital’scurrent effort to integrate the South Korean KOMPSATand the NASA/JPL ACRIMSAT spacecraft on a singlelaunch later this year. Integration efforts with each satelliteare conducted independently. Launch site operations areperformed independently and separately from each other.The ability to perform the mission in this manner preventsrestrictions that could have easily prevented the missionfrom taking place if direct interaction was required

Composites - Orbital/VermontComposites

Fairing 63"92"

- Orbital/Vermont Composites- Orbital/R-Cubed

Motors - Alliant Techsystems

TVC - Allied Signal

TVC - Parker

AIAA003

Flight ComputerIMUPyro Driver UnitBatteriesMultiplexerPower Transfer SwitchFTS Receiver TransponderWire Harness

SBS Embedded ComputersLittonOrbitalOrbital, BSTOrbitalOrbital

Cincinnati ElectronicsHerley MicrowaveOrbital

Avionics

TVC - Allied Signal

Stage 0

Motor - Thiokol

Reaction Control System - Moog, Orbital

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Interstage - Orbital/Remmele

Figure 3. Taurus Expanded View.

4

Figure 4. Multiple Satellite Configurations.AIAA004

DPAF Configuration

Pegasus3rd Stage

DPAF

Shared LaunchConfiguration With Adapter

InterfaceAdapter

LowerSpacecraft

UpperSpacecraft

Shared LaunchConfiguration

LowerSpacecraft

UpperSpacecraft Aft Satellite

Envelope

ForwardSatelliteEnvelope

SSC99-IIA-4


between the two satellite providers. For this configuration,the mass available to the aft satellite is the launch vehicleperformance minus the forward satellite and the associatedadapter structure and electrical harnessing.

In an ongoing effort to fully utilize available volume andperformance, Orbital has also flown a combination of thetwo configurations. The Taurus T2 mission launched theGEOSat Follow On (GFO) spacecraft in the forwardDPAF position, while a stack of two ORBCOMMspacecraft occupied the aft position enclosed by the DPAFstructure as shown in Figure 7.

Experience

To date, Orbital has launched over 60 payloads on 30Pegasus and Taurus launches including 22 satellites onmultiple customer missions. Figure 8 shows the Pegasusand Taurus operational heritage since the inaugural

Pegasus flight in 1990. Figure 9 details the results formissions with multiple customers. This figure highlightsthe experience Orbital has with manifesting a variety ofcustomers on different missions. In addition to themissions shown, Taurus currently has two and Pegasushas one multi customer mission manifested in the next 18months. This history makes Orbital the undisputed leaderis launching multiple small satellites. It has been Orbital’sinnovative management approach that has made so manymultiple-payload missions a reality. The results are aglowing success, not only from the perspective of finalorbit results, but from customer satisfaction throughoutthe integration process. This success has not come withoutsignificant challenges and learning experiences. Each newcustomer or combination of customers represents a newset of requirements, challenges, and expectations.Addressing these items are the key to successfullyproviding satellite customers reduced launch costs viashared launches.

5

Figure 5. Taurus Multiple Satellite Configuration.AIAA005

63" Fairing with APC


50" APC

Aft SatelliteEnvelope

Note: Not to scale.

63" Fairing with Stacked Configuration

92" Fairing with 63" DPAF


Aft SatelliteEnvelope

63"DPAF

SSC99-IIA-4


Management Buy In

Foremost in overcoming the hurdles to shared launches,is senior management acknowledgement the approach isa worthwhile venture. It is easy to list the obstacles,challenges, and hurdles of multiple manifesting and cometo the conclusion that it is just too difficult. Managementcommitment, from both the launch vehicle provider aswell as the satellite customers, is paramount to ensuring asuccessful mission that meets the requirements of allparties. Orbital’s vision of “Bringing the Benefits of SpaceDown to Earth” has required managers to leave no stoneunturned in an effort to reduce the cost of deliveringhardware to space. As a result, Orbital management hasembraced the concept of aggressively seeking missionswith multiple customers.

Is A Secondary Feasible?

Once a potential mission has been identified, the launchprovider needs to assess the viability of adding additionalsatellites and possibly reducing the cost for the primarycustomer. For the most part this is a straightforwardprocess that consists of evaluating the target orbit and thevolume and performance available for potential

secondaries. However, as mentioned before, otherconsiderations should not be overlooked. Foremost iswhether or not the primary customer is open to such anarrangement. For various reasons, even if excesscapability exists, a customer may elect to forgo thepossible cost savings associated with launching additionalsatellites. Other considerations include, but are not limitedto potential political or cultural differences betweencustomers, commercial proprietary information, nationalsecurity issues, and spacecraft interface flexibility. Oncethese factors have been evaluated and the consensus is asecondary is at least feasible, the effort to secure asecondary begins in earnest.

The Primary Satellite Contract – Up Front Planning

The first step to overcoming many of the hurdles withshared rides is the contract with the primary satellitecustomer. A contract that lays the foundation for includinga secondary satellite is critical to enabling the rideshare

AIAA006

Figure 6. T1 Stacked Satellite Configuration.

6

Figure 7. T2 GFO/ORBCOMM Configuration.AIAA007

GFO

ORBCOMM(2)

SSC99-IIA-4

Dave L. Callen 13th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites7

4/5/90Std

2/9Std

DoDNASADoD

BrazilOrbitalUSAF/DoEOrbitalDoD

USAF

USAF

USAF

ORBCOMMORBIMAGEUSAF

USAF

BMDO

NASANASA

NASA

Spain

ORBIMAGE

USAF/DoEUSAF

ORBCOMM

BATCORBCOMMNASAOrbitalNASA

ORBCOMM

ORBCOMM

DoD

Brazil

NASA

NASA

NASADoD

F1

F2

F3

F4

T1

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

F10

F11

F12F13

F14

F15

F16

F17F18

F19

T2

F20

F21

F22

F23

T3

F24

F25

F26

F27

PegsatNavysat7 Microsats

SCD-1OXP-1ALEXISOXP-2STEP-M0DARPASATSTEP-M2

STEP-M1FX-AAPEX

FM1 & FM2OrbView-1STEP-M3

REX-II

MSTI-3

TOMS EPFAST

SACBHETEMINISAT 01CelestisOrbView-2

FORTESTEP-M4

ORBCOMM-1FM5-12GFOFM3 & FM4SNOEBATSAT (T-1)TRACE

ORBCOMM-2FM 13-20ORBCOMM-3FM21-28STEX

SCD-2

SWAS

WIRE

TERRIERSMUBLCOM

Customer Mission 1990-1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

7/17/91Std/HAPS

4/25Std

3/13

2/10

10/3

Std/HAPS 5/19

XL 6/27

XL 6/22

XL 3/8

XL 7/2

XL 8/21

XL 8/1

XL 8/29

XL 10/22

XL/HAPS 12/23

XL 2/25

XL 4/1

8/2XL

9/23XL

10/22Std

12/6XL

Std 8/3

Std 4/3

Std 5/16

XL 4/21

AIAA009Figure 8. Pegasus and Taurus Flight Heritage.

XL 1/4

3/4/99XL

5/17/99XL

SSC99-IIA-4


process to occur. Although occasionally two customerscome together and jointly request a launch or twocompatible customers have been identified by the launchprovider, Orbital’s norm has been that the secondary isnot identified at the time the initial launch services contractis signed. The contract should be up front in identifyingthe likelihood of an additional customer. Recognizingthis, the maximum allowable primary satellite mass andvolume must be succinctly defined to ensure the propercapability is presented to potential secondary customers.As much detail as possible about the mission requirementsand launch vehicle-to-satellite interface should beprovided in the contract’s Statement of Work ordocumentation such as the Payload Questionnaire that istypically requested by the launch provider early in thecoordination between the two parties. Electricalinterfaces, contamination requirements, potential hazards,and other parameters affecting the secondary are bestdefined early to prevent compatibility problems later inthe program.

If possible, launch dates, launch windows, and orbitparameters should be identified as ranges, rather thanabsolute values. The more flexible the primary customeris, the more likely it is to find a paying customer to helpreduce the cost of the launch. Such flexibility was crucialfor the first Taurus launch of two DoD satellites.Originally, due to very stringent requirements, there weremany days that no launch window existed that satisfiedboth customer’s requirements. When one did exist, it wasextremely short, limiting launch availability significantly.After working together, the team was able to evaluate thevarious requirements and come to a solution that wasacceptable to all and allowed for a reasonable launchwindow. Although not always highly desirable by theprimary customer at the beginning of negotiations,working toward this approach in an effort to bring launchcosts down is often a factor by the time the final contractis signed. Orbital recognizes that for some missions theorbit parameters are fixed or are a very tight range andlittle can be done without severely affecting the satellite’s

Flt Customer(s) Payload Payload Mission Mission ResultsTarget OrbitActual Orbit

LaunchDate

Vehicle

• Complete Success• President's Medal of Technology Awarded to Orbital

• Complete Success



• Failed to Separate Spacecraft







320.0 x 360.0 nm @ 94.00° i273.0 x 370.0 nm @ 94.15° i

405.0 x 405.0 nm @ 25.00° i393.0 x 427.0 nm @ 24.97° i

400.0 x 400.0 nm @ 70.00° i404.0 x 450.5 nm @ 69.92° i

398.0 x 404.0 nm @ 70.00° i395.0 x 411.0 nm @ 70.03° i

510.0 x 550.0 km @ 38.00° i488.1 x 555.4 km @ 37.98° i

580.0 x 580.0 km @ 97.75° i582.0 x 542.0 km @ 97.76° i

750.0 x 750.0 km @ 25.00° i750.4 x 767.0 km @ 24.91° i

550.0 x 550.0 km @ 97.75° i551.0 x 557.0 km @ 97.72° i775.0 x 775.0 km @ 97.75° i774.0 x 788.0 km @ 97.72° i

290.0 x 293.0 nm @ 105.00° i290.8 x 301.2 nm @ 105.00° i

778.7 x 790.1 km @ 108.04° i781.3 x 876.9 km @ 107.99° i

• Flight Test Instrumentation• Atmospheric Research• Communications Experiment

• Data Communications• Communications Experiment

• Technology Validation• Communications Experiment

• Communications• Atmospheric Research

• Space Physics Research• Space Physics Research

• University Science Payload• Commercial Telecommuni- cations Test Payload• Data Communications• Atmospheric Experiment

• University Science Payload

• Technology Validation

• Technology Validation

• U.S. Navy Payload• Commercial Telecommunications

PegaSat

SECS

SCD-1OXP-1

ALEXISOXP-2

FM1 &FM2MicroLab

SAC-BHETE

SNOEBATSAT(T-1)

SCD-2Wing Glove

TERRIERS

MUBLCOM

DARPASatSTEP 0

GFO2 ORBCOMM Satellites

4/5/90Standard

2/9/93Standard

4/25/93Standard

4/3/95Hybrid

11/4/96XL

2/25/98XL

10/22/98HYBRID

5/17/99XLw/HAPS

3/13/94

2/10/98

DoD/NASA

DoD

INPE BrazilOrbital

DoD/DoEOrbital

ORBCOMMNASA

NASA

NASATeledesic

INPE BrazilNASA

NASA

DARPA

DoD

Ball AerospaceORBCOMM

Pegasus

XF1

F3

F4

F8

F14

F20

F24

F27

T1

T2

Taurus

AIAA009

Figure 9. Orbital's Flight Performance Summary.

8

SSC99-IIA-4


mission. In these cases, flexibility in other areas may becritical to attracting additional customers.

The contract should provide detailed provisions for costsharing or savings that will be realized by the primary ifand when a secondary is found. Schedule, possibleschedule delays in an effort to support a secondary, andtiming for identifying a secondary are typically addressed.If the launch provider is confident that a compatiblesecondary exists for the mission, the primary contract mayalready include a cost savings to the primary withprovisions for launch date flexibility. The key is toremember that options exist for both parties and shouldbe evaluated thoroughly to find what’s best and providesa “win-win” situation.

Details of “payload compatibility analysis” contents andprimary customer insight to the selection and approvalprocess of the secondary, if applicable, should be specifiedto the degree practical. Addressing these issues up frontprevents laborious and potentially contentious contractnegotiations later in the mission.

It is imperative that the launch provider communicate tothe primary customer that, once identified, the secondarycustomer will be required to provide all necessarydocumentation to ensure no impact to the primary mission.The launch provider should also delineate that thesecondary will receive the full complement of launchintegration services similar to that of the primary,enhancing the chance for a completely successful mission,smooth integration process, and two satisfied customers.

Finding the Secondary

Once a mission is identified, and assuming there is volumeand performance capability to support a secondary, thedifficult job of identifying potential secondary candidatesbegins. Getting the word out to the ever changing, everexpanding smallsat market is no easy task. Orbital uses avariety of methods to notify the community of pendinglaunches with excess capability. Print advertisementshailing recent Pegasus or Taurus launch successes oftenaddress potential opportunities. Briefings at seminars,conferences, and other industry functions as well asbriefings to existing and previous customers alsocommunicate the opportunity. Orbital’s web site hasattracted numerous inquiries from customers. Again, anaggressive approach with full management backing isrequired to ensure full exposure to the potential market.Management, business development, and programpersonnel must all be looking for the satellite that is the“right fit”. Providing as much detail as possible aboutthe mission and capabilities available to the secondary

are key to arousing interest in the satellite community. Insome cases, marketing the secondary space is moredifficult than others. Available mass and/or volume maybe small. There may be little flexibility in orbitparameters. This is the case with the upcoming Tauruslaunch of the OrbView-4 satellite. The primary satellite’smission is such that a very specific orbit is required tofulfill the missions of its customers. Fortunately, theOrbView-4 is packaged in a manner so that significantvolume and performance capability exists for thesecondary. This allows a potential secondary theflexibility to include a propulsion system to adjust theorbit once deployed into the primary’s orbit. Work iscurrently in place to add a secondary satellite that will dojust that. Before settling on this payload, Orbital hasworked with several other candidate satellites, providingone customer an innovative way to complete a longduration mission involving the spent Taurus upper stage.Treating all potential customers with respect andpersevering to provide solutions that result in ways to getto orbit keeps the smallsat community interested in youractivities. Once again, Orbital’s aggressive, the glass ishalf-full mentality has provided a cost effective way fortwo satellites to reach orbit.

Define the Service and Manage ExpectationsAs mentioned earlier, laying the foundation with theprimary customer early in the mission helps overcomemany obstacles later in the flow. Likewise, providing aclear, concise definition of the service to be provided tothe secondary is crucial. Define the available mass andvolume as well as the detailed mechanical and electricalinterface as early as possible, preferably before signingthe contract with the secondary. This sounds intuitive,but is sometimes easier said than done as primary payloadrequirements may be late in coming. In these cases,defining worse case scenarios that the secondary may haveto accommodate is the prudent approach. Otherwise, it’svery possible to end up with overlapping requirementsthat cannot be met.

Orbital’s approach is to provide each customer on aspecific mission a full complement of launch integrationservices including documentation, analyses, rangecoordination, integration meetings, and launch siteintegration. These services, including a timeline for alldocumentation submittals and key milestones, arepresented to the secondary early in the process and aredocumented appropriately in the contract, SOW, andInterface Control Document (ICD). At the same time, itis important to manage expectations such that thesecondary is not disillusioned as the program progresses.A good example is the Taurus T4 commercial SouthKorean KOMPSAT mission. Commercial contracts by

9

SSC99-IIA-4


nature limit customer insight to details of the launchvehicle production process, but in this case it is even morelimited due to U.S. State Department restrictions in theTechnical Assistance Agreement (TAA) approved for thislaunch. The Orbital T4 team has been established tooperate within those parameters. Approximately a yearbefore launch, NASA elected to co-manifest theACRIMSAT spacecraft as a secondary on this mission.Although many NASA satellites have been launched onPegasus, this is the first NASA satellite to be launched onTaurus. It is also the first time NASA has been a secondaryon an Orbital launch. Traditional government launchcontracts require significantly more customer insight tolaunch vehicle data than the commercial contract with aforeign primary satellite allows. Orbital worked closelywith NASA from the beginning to manage expectationsand to work to an agreeable arrangement that satisfiedboth parties. NASA is provided more insight than atraditional commercial secondary customer would beafforded, but less than what would typically be requiredof a dedicated NASA launch. This has been a learningprocess for both sides. To date the relationship has workedwell due to the groundwork laid early in the program.

The Integration Effort

The launch vehicle provider must be prepared to providethe resources to support additional satellite customers.While a number of mission analyses are common for theentire configuration, there is additional effort toincorporate multiple payload inputs. Examples includethe coupled loads, integrated thermal, random vibration,vibroacoustic, and the mission analyses. Inputs arerequired from both customers to complete these integratedanalyses and in some cases require labor intensive effortto manipulate the input into usable data. A good exampleis converting the payload’s structural model into a formthat can be used in the launch provider’s coupled loadsanalysis. The Final Mission Analysis becomes morecomplicated when evaluating the deployment sequenceof multiple spacecraft and adapter structures. Theintegrated safety package required for range approvalrequires additional work to incorporate hazards from allthe spacecraft.

Other analyses require separate efforts for each payload.These include separation tip-off, satellite to LV clearance,and others specified by the contract. The payloadcompatibility analysis – required by most primary, andsome secondary, customers - requires substantial effortto collect the required inputs, complete the analysis, andpresent the results.Orbital is committed to providing a complete integrationservice including Mission Integration Working Groups,

Interface Control Document and Drawings, and IntegratedLaunch Site Procedures. These are all “standalone” effortsfor each customer and require substantial manpower tocomplete in a timely manner. Additional engineers,designers, and manufacturing personnel may be requiredto accommodate multiple satellite interfaces andassociated hardware. Range documentation and launchday documents (countdown procedure, mission constraintsdocument, communication plans, and others), FAAlicenses, payload processing facility (PPF) contracts, andinsurance policies must all be updated to reflect the finalflight configuration including all satellites.

Orbital has implemented planning that attempts tominimize these impacts by timely deliveries of inputs fromthe customers and staggered timelines for deliveringresults to each customer. These timelines are workedclosely with each customer early in the integration processto ensure they are acceptable to all parties. By holdingthe customer responsible for meeting his delivery datesand meeting our promise dates, Orbital is able to providea service that meets the needs of the payload customersas well as the range and other external parties. Byproviding standard interfaces for its customers, Orbitalcan minimize the effort required to engineer, design, andproduce mission specific hardware.

Schedules for deliverables from each customer must beclearly defined and adhered to in order for the launchprovider to produce documentation and completeintegrated analyses on time. Failure to comply in thisarea can adversely affect the likelihood of an on-timelaunch. For example, late delivery of a validatedspacecraft structural model delays completion of the finalcoupled loads analysis. These results are often used toestablish test levels for final spacecraft structural testing.The launch provider must ensure each customer isprepared to deliver an acceptable model in time to supportthis analysis. Likewise, late customer inputs to rangerequired documentation can result in late flight planapproval from range safety. Again, the launch providermust coordinate this effort to preclude conflicts withmeeting range schedules.

Launch Site Integration

Launch site activities present their own separate set ofchallenges. Issues as varied as launch control room-seating accommodations, payload processing facilityspace limitations, processing timelines, integratedelectrical testing, and hazardous procedures require closecoordination on part of the launch provider. Launch siteprocedures, operations, and timelines for each customermust be planned to the smallest detail. Meeting spacecraft

10

SSC99-IIA-4


requirements such as propellant loading, contaminationcontrol, air conditioning, battery maintenance, andphysical access take on increased complexity whenintegrating more than one satellite. Careful planning tominimize the integration timeline and possibility ofexceeding component “clocks” started by key satelliteoperations such as arming plug installation is essential toreducing the costs incurred by launch teams deployed tothe field. Customer operations at both the integrationfacility and launch pad require detailed oversight on thepart of the launch provider. Productive, thorough workinggroup meetings prior to arrival at the launch base are amandatory prerequisite. These meetings are to be chairedby key technical and operations personnel responsible forthe integration of the satellites to the launch vehicle.

Day-of-launch activities represent their own challenges.Customer communication requirements, missionconstraints, reporting paths, and countdown participationmust be succinctly defined to minimize the possibility oflaunch day confusion. Roles and responsibilities are tobe clearly laid out in launch documentation.

External CustomersIt’s important that external customers also be informedearly of the decision to manifest additional satellites on agiven launch. These customers include, but are not limitedto, all appropriate range organizations, the PayloadProcessing Facility management, the FAA, and insurancecompanies. Early coordination prevents confusion andpossible last minute heroics to satisfy requirements leviedby these organizations. This is especially true if one ofthe customers is a non-US entity, whereas additionalcoordination is needed with the appropriate governmentagencies to secure permission to launch the satellite.Additional restrictions on data delivered to the customerare likely to be implemented for such launches. Rangesafety organizations must be fully cognizant of the designdetails and planned operations for all satellites, as well asthe launch vehicle, before approval will be given toproceed with the integration and launch activities. Allsatellite hazards and potential security issues must be fullyunderstood by the PPF provider to ensure his facility meetsthe needs of the mission. For commercial missions, theFAA and insurance companies require very specificinformation on the nature of the entire mission, includingdata on all payloads. Notifying these agencies as soon aspossible minimizes the chances for last minute requestsfor additional data. If a commercial spaceport is beingused, they should also be notified if additional satellitesare added to the mission. When downrange or mobileassets are used to track the launch, they too should beinformed of any additions to the mission. This is not anexhaustive list of possible organizations that need to be

kept abreast of the manifest, but represents typicalagencies the launch provider must coordinate with priorto launch. Each launch has will have its own set ofpotential agencies to which the launch provider must beresponsive. It is important to keep them all cognizant ofyour plans.

ConclusionOrbital is the leader in multiple satellite launches. Wehave demonstrated that this is a responsive, cost effectiveway to provide access to space to the smallsat community.The management challenges to accomplishing this taskare many, ranging from finding compatible satellites toconflicting requirements on launch day. There is nostandard set of answers for all missions. Each missionand set of customers brings new challenges. Orbital’sexperience is if you work hard enough, there will be newanswers.

This effort cannot be accomplished by the launch provideralone. The satellite providers are an equal partner inrealizing the benefits of this approach. Yes, shared ridesdo provide a lower cost to orbit, but only if satellitescommit to a specific launch vehicle in a timely fashion,are willing to be flexible in some, not all, of theirrequirements, and are considerate of their co-passengers.Orbital and its customers have continuously found waysto make this happen and plan to continue to do so formany years to come.

11

Documents

Paper - SmallSat 1999 Management Challenges