1. Military Spaceplane (MSP) and Reusable Launch Vehicle Study Brig Gen Anarde HQ AFSPC/XP UNCLASSIFIED

2. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT27/2/2015 Purpose Review actions to date Assess Reusable Launch Vehicles Operational Utility Science and Technology Maturity Assess X-33 and X-37 applicability Recommend position AF role in X-33 and X-37 programs Identify other options Establish glide slope for AF Reusable Launch Vehicle way ahead

3. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT37/2/2015 Bottom Line Study assessments reveal substantial risks and mitigations associated with continuing with the X-33 and X-37 programs No consensus (although of the two programs, the X-33 seems least likely to offer an achievable, straight forward follow-on concept leading to an operational vehicle)... More work needed on an AF roadmap, systems concepts development, and systems engineering trades Study highly recommends much closer NASA-AF partnership on SLI and reusable technologies Sentiment that the systems might help evolution towards military space plane... But at what cost? Any recommendation to proceed would be heavily influenced by what we could learn from operating these systems. These lessons learned could enhance the evolution of integrated aerospace operations, systems development, and requirements refinement

4. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT47/2/2015 What have we learned? Premise: Reusable vehicles offer potential warfighting value Two Stage to Orbit -- the best alternative Mix of Expendable and Reusable Vehicles Suite of vehicles to cover the range of ops and missions Continued partnership with NASA imperative Gaps in capability: Operations Technology Performance Enablers Propulsion maturity Thermal Protection Systems Integrated Vehicle Health Management Ops Concepts and Requirements Definition

5. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT57/2/2015 USAF: Leading the Transformation Rapid Aerospace Dominance The Conceptual Framework for Employing Aerospace Power in Future Joint Warfighting Goal Capabilities Strategic Plan Force Structure Organizations AEF PRIME AEFs EAF MOBILITY EAF FOUNDATION

6. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT67/2/2015 Space Enablers & Warriors Building on Space’s Vigilance Legacy Building on Space’s Vigilance Legacy Providing Direct Combat Capabilities to Promote Peace & Stability; Fight & Win Space Vigilance, Reach, & Power Space Space Forces

7. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT77/2/2015 Theater Impact Low Earth Orbit Rapid Force Reconstitution Space ISR enhancement Space Superiority (Offensive and Defensive) z Tac/ Recce & SEAD Precision Strike High Earth Orbit Assets Employed 3 SOV with ISR 3 Sorties 8 CAV per SOV 16 Sorties 1 SMV per SOV 2 Sorties 1 EO sensor / SMV 3 Sorties 8 Microsat / SMV 8 CAV on Airfield 2 CAV on each Chokepoint 1 Microsat on each key satellite 0-8 Sorties for ISR 0-2 Sorties for Space Superiority

8. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT87/2/2015 Objectives of Relevant Flight Regimes X-37: Demonstrates limited set of Re-Entry Environment Dynamics - Heating and deceleration conditions from orbit to landing - Opportunity to develop refurbishment protocols X-33: Demonstrates Launch Environment Dynamics - Liftoff to Mach 11 (need Mach 15+) - Opportunity to develop operational processes These demonstrators fill only small parts of the flight profiles required to field and operate military space plane.

9. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT97/2/2015 Evolution to Military Space Plane Incremental Evolution Systems/Capabilities Prototypes Demonstrators Concepts Payload Developments -Sensors -- Hyperspectral -- Imaging -- Radar -- MASINT -- SIGINT -- Other - Weapons and Vehicles -- CAV -- Precision Munitions -- EW -- Microsat Operations Considerations -- Overland Launch -- Integrated ISR -- Refurbishment -- Rapid Payload Integration -- Rapid On-orbit Checkout -- Standard Interfaces -- Orbital Operations Flexibility

10. S&T Assessment What We Did Assessed technology state-of-the-art, AF S&T, NASA SLI and value of baselined X-33/X-37 against AFSPC SOV desired capabilities Results Current investment in AF S&T, NASA SLI and/or X-33/X-37 will not advance SOV enabling technologies to TRL 6 (Demo) – Still Large Tech Gap -- Needs Significant S&T Investment X-33 and X-37 provide only limited advances in some technologies enabling AFSPC capabilities but would help establish tech needs Will Require Additional Flight Demonstrator Prior To EMD

11. RLV ENABLING TECHNOLOGY AREAS = TRL 6 = TRL 3 to 5 = TRL LESS THAN 3 FY10 AF & NASA Technology Programs Value Added to SOV Technology Gap State-Of-The-Art (SOTA) = Shuttle + ELV + EELV AF S&T = Current AFRL R&D Efforts for SOV NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI) Narrows Technology Gap for SOV Limited Tech Value Of X-33/X-37, Still Requires S&T + Flight Demo + or $545M FY02-07 $766M* FY01-03 $575M FY02-06 $599M FY02-06 Additional S&T / Flight Demo + *SLI figure does not include $4.5B additional NASA funds

12. Charter and Tasks Perform an independent assessment of the X-33 and X-37 projects Review programmatic issues Performance to date Program management and systems engineering processes Proposed team’s ability to execute program Assess technical risks and value of projects As an MSP demonstrator For a specific follow-on program For unique USAF interest Assess cost, status, and schedule Charter does not include making recommendations for USAF funding levels or participation

13. X-33 Program Assessment Programmatics: Estimate to LM Aero Complete $418M $575M First Flight: 12/05 (success oriented schedule likely to slip) Program cancelled, team dispersed Value as a Demonstrator Autonomous flight control Metallic TPS (will only be tested to Mach 11) Lifting body aerodynamics & aerospike engine Operable ground &flight operations High Technical Risk Aluminum LH2 tank integration Engine performance and TVC issues Software integration Metallic TPS: Joint sealing under dynamic, thermal, and acoustic flight environment Program Plan Complete 1 demonstration vehicle 7 Flights Max. Velocity: Mach 8-11 Launch site complete AF study findings are in agreement with NASA conclusions

14. X-37 Program Assessment Programmatics: Estimate to Boeing Aero Complete $462M $599M First Flight: 12/05 $10M remaining in CA funds $4M per month current spend rate Value as a Demonstrator Advanced composites & modular construction Advanced TPS (tested over complete reentry domain) Autonomous guidance H202 propulsion experience Limited experience with SMV ops High Technical Risk Weight growth (7000 lb. limit) Airframe production problems Producibility of C/SiC structures Li-ion battery development Propulsion, valves, tank and materials Program Plan First vehicle used for Approach/ Landing Test Vehicle (ATLV) Second vehicle to be developed as Orbital Vehicle Two flight tests planned Launch on Delta IV: ($100M each ) AF study findings are in agreement with NASA conclusions

15. X-Vehicle Summary X-Programs are inherently high risk X-33 & X-37 have made significant contributions toward understanding achievable vehicle performance, cost, and integration issues will improve system engineering tools and databases completion of programs would permit capture of vehicle integration and operations data Value as technology demonstrators limited to a subset of necessary technologies Ground test alone are not sufficient to verify USAF requirements for operability and responsiveness additional flight test activities are needed

16. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT167/2/2015 Criteria for Analysis Technology push Science and Technology requirements definition Developmental Concepts refinement Trade space identification Operational Expertise Evolution Ground Ops Flight Ops Payload Experience Recovery and Reconstitution Ability to integrate into Rapid Aerospace Dominance Global Strike Task Force Future Strike

17. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT177/2/2015 Assessment of Options No contingent capability Demonstrator only Comments ++ Overall Assessment ++ Integrated Aerospace Ops ++ Operational Utility +++ Trade Space Potential -- Cost Risk ++ S&T Req Definition ++ Technology Push X-37X-33Major Analysis Area -- Technical Risk - *- Schedule Risk Comments: X-33: Slight to marginal utility Current issues: Software development Thrust Vector Control Positive advances: Metallic TPS Launch base ops Aerospike Engine flight Recovery and Reconstitution ops X-37: Slight to marginal utility Issues: Launch cost Few flights Positive advances: Reentry profile data Recovery and Reconstitution operations * NASA FY06 Decision for SLI

18. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT187/2/2015 Broad Approach Required, If Decision to Proceed Requirements Definition Concepts, Systems Engineering, S&T Prioritization National Roadmap for Reusables Begin new studies to define concepts with direct military utility Organizational Develop integrated organization to address Military Space Plane Establish Program Element Start Pre-SPO Managerial Develop cooperative agreements between ACC, ASC, AFRL, SMC, AFSPC and NASA to manage requirements and program development Cooperative Planning effort with NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center Operations Doctrine Development and Tactics Evolution Wargaming and Modeling & Simulation Analysis Partner for Future Strike applications with ACC

19. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT197/2/2015 Summary The future of AF space requires establishing superiority in the space medium as warfighters Space Superiority Global Precision Strike Force Enablers and Packages Technology demonstrators historically have provided significant insight into viable mission suites and operational missions for future military operations Begin development to pursue integrated flight demonstrations and qualify sensors/payloads

20. AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT207/2/2015 Partnership Council Way Ahead NASA and AF need to harmonize space technology investments AFRL Responsive Reusable Access to Space effort (R2SPACE) NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI) SMC Advanced Space Lift II Study (ASL II) National team to work on roadmap for RLV Incorporate SLI initiatives and funding Review progress made at all future AFSPC/NASA/NRO Partnership Council meetings AFSPC briefing for SecAF and CSAF providing study results on X-33 and X-37 Council Conclusions: Do not pursue X-33 program Approve further study of X-37 as we develop RLV roadmap