1. HLV Industry Day Hybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning Mr. Bob Hickman Aerospace Corporation Space and Missile Systems Center 07 March 2005 ORS AoA Review

2. 2 Rapid reconstitution of space capabilities lost due to enemy action Augmentation of critical ISR capabilities Force Enhancement Cost Effective Lift Responsive launch Routine launch Recover Space Assets On-Orbit Servicing Support ACTDs & Testing Space Support Defensive Counterspace Satellite Protection Offensive Counterspace Space Surveillance Small (300-lb) PLs to high-energy orbits Counterspace Global Precision Strike Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) Flexible Weapon Carrier Centers of Gravity HDBT & WMD Defeat Response from CONUS < 120 min Force Application AoA defined lift capacity, responsiveness, and affordability to enable these missions ORS AoA Mission Areas

3. 3 Aggressiveness Assumption FEBA Penetration % Improvement 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% lowmediumhigh Replenishment Red OCS Blue OCS SFA ORS capability has significant military utility across all three aggressiveness levels examined ORS Effect on Military Utility

4. 4 Many thousands of military campaign simulations Identified specific performance parameters to guide spacecraft design SFA ORS AoA Military Utility Analysis

5. 5 Current Way of Doing Business Responsive Satellites Responsive Micro-Sats Serviceable Satellites Recoverable Satellites Retrievable Satellites Store SpHLV On-Orbit Space Vehicle Architectures Distributed Micro-Sats AoA Process considered how different future space architectures would affect the desirability of each launch option 71 Launch Vehicle Architectures Space Alternatives vs. Launch Alternatives

6. 6 Spacelift Vehicle Options New ELVs 3-Stage Solid 2-Stage Liquid Hybrid LH Reusable Booster RP Reusable Booster Liquid or Solid Upper Stages RLV (TSTO) Optimized LH-LH Optimized RP-RP Optimized RP-LH Bimese LH-LH Bimese RP-RP Hypersonic Rocket Payload Classes 1 Klb – 45 Klb to LEO EELV

7. 7 Hybrid Vehicle Based Architectures  Best choice in 85% of representative futures (1) Best or within 6% of best choice in 92% of representative futures Best or within 15% of best choice in 96% of representative futures  Hybrid architectures minimize the worst outcome (max regret) for all levels of production costs, levels of operability, and levels of military utility Why?  Relatively low development costs  Reduces launch costs by 67% (2)  2-4 Day turn-around time  Low technical risk AFFORDABILITY RESPONSIVENESS RISK ___ 1) Based on 20-Year LCC 2) Compared to EELV prices, published as of Dec 2003 The Hybrid* Vehicle * Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

8. 8 ~Mach 7 Separation ~200,000 ft ~Mach 7 Separation ~200,000 ft $1k-$2k/lb to LEO 1-2 Day Turn Time $1k-$2k/lb to LEO 1-2 Day Turn Time REUSABLE BOOSTER EXPENDABLE UPPER STAGES The Hybrid* Vehicle * Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

9. 9 (This example based on 15 Klb to LEO capability, LH2 Propellant) Expended Hardware (Klb) Reused Hardware (Klb) Hybrids offer cost-effective combination of RLV & ELV characteristics RLV 196 0 Fully-Reusable RLVs Are big because orbiter must go to/from orbit Drives higher development and production costs ELV 33 0 Fully-Expendable ELVs Expend large amounts of hardware Drives higher recurring costs Hybrid* 12 61 Hybrid ELV-RLVs Balance ELV-RLV Production and Development costs, resulting in lower LCC for most cases 36% of ELV 31% of RLV Why Hybrids* Cost Less

10. 10 Launch Vehicle Hybrid turnaround time ~26 Serial Hrs * Result Supported By ORS AoA & AFRL/Industry (RAST & SOV Studies) InfrastructureIntegrationPayloadsSpaceportPost Ops Industrial Base 439 man-hrs 4234 0 7 2 7,764 12,482 8,205 18,914 5,771 10,434 Propulsion Mechanical Electrical Thermal OMS/RCS P/L Integration STS 1 st Stage Hybrid RLV Subsystems 0 15,893 Crew Support ORS Modern Engines Fewer Engines High Margins Benign Environment Modern Self- Contained Actuation Batteries only No Fuel Cells No APUs No TPS Required No OMS Non-toxic RCS Canisterized Payloads No Crew or long duration missions Launch Vehicle Launch Vehicle Hybrid Vehicle Responsiveness based on Shuttle Ops Data

11. 11 The HLV (Mach 6+) Flight Environment The X-15: 1959 -1968 199 FLIGHTS: High Speed: Mach 6.33, with Inconel hot structure Fast Turn: < 48 hours Low Cost: < ~$1.6M / flight (inflated to FY04) Robust Rocket Engine (XLR-99): Throttleable, restartable, 24 MFBO DEMONSTRATED: Demonstrated operable rocket powered flight above Mach 6

12. 12 Region of State-of-the-Art Technologies 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.760.780.800.820.840.860.880.90 Propellant Mass Fraction Vehicle Gross Weight (10 6 lb) Hybrid 2-Stage RLV (TSTO) 1-Stage RLV (SSTO) Incentive to optimize performance Hybrids facilitate robust designs, with low risk. Design Curve Sensitivity

13. 13 HLV Planned Modular Development Notional Example *PK=Peacekeeper Shuttle depicted for size comparison only. Peacekeeper or Falcon SLV ORS Hybrid ORS 2-Booster Hybrid PK* Stg 1 & 3 Upper Stagesor FALCONPK or FALCON 2 New U/S Payload to LEO 1,500 lb14,100 lb** 24,000 lb**45,000 lb Payload to GTO4,500 lb8,200 lb15,000 lb Flyback Method noneJet FlybackJet FlybackJet Flyback ** Constrained to Mach 7 staging *** GTO performance requires STAR or MIS upper stages ORS 2-Booster Hybrid ( Growth )

14. 14 AFROCC Decision (15 July 2004)

15. 15 Hybrids can reduce costs by factor of 3-6 and have 1-2 day turn time Planned evolution recommended by ORS AoA, beginning with subscale demo, followed by full-scale Y-vehicle AFROCC approved the AoA’s recommendations Low risk compared to Mach 25 Vehicles Modular architecture of hybrid launch vehicles can be designed to cover all weight classes Summary Findings