2. 1 SPST Briefing for Code R Associate Administrator and Senior Management November 9, 2001 NASA Headquarters

3. 2 Introduction Walt Dankhoff SPST Executive Sec

4. 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

5. 4 Agenda ( concluded )  Planned Tasks for FY 2002 SPST Activities  Discussion and Feedback All

6. 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).

7. 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”

8. 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. Academia19 US Government NASA68 USAF7 US Army1 DOT1 OMB1 Liquid Propulsion Industry Aerojet3 P & W4 Rocketdyne3 Solid Propulsion Industry Aerojet1 Atlantic Research`2 Thiokol4 Primex2 Aerospace Vehicle Industry Boeing10 Lockheed Martin11 TRW3 Kelly1 Pioneer1 Aerospace Subsystems/Components27 Not-for-profit Aerospace4 Netherlands 1 Space Transportation Association1 Total175

9. 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.

10. 9 Air / Space Transportation Analogies Study Pete Mitchell, Lead

11. 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.

12. 11 Aviation/Space Analog Team Government 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

13. 12 Jet Engine and Rocket Propulsion Data Comparison

14. 13 Development Phase Detail Design Specification Requirements for Rocket & Jet Engines * Major differences are design life, LCF requirements, safety factors & mission duration

15. 14 Right Design Choices Early on Count Most

16. 15 Progressive Reduction in Critical Jet Engine Failures

17. 16 Fighter Engine Data TECHNOLOGY HAS IMPROVED PERFORMANCE & SAFETY THRUST/SAFETY ENGINETHRUSTWEIGHT CLASS A LBFLBMMISHAP J7917,00036954.69.48 J5713,75038703.65.61 J7526,5005,9604.44.56 TF4115,00032044.71.86 F100-20022,60031907.11.89 F110-10028,00032898.51.61 F100-22027,00034057.91.03 F110-12929,00039807.31.73 F100-22929,10037457.7 <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.

18. 17 Development of Advanced RLV System Development Algorithm Russel Rhodes, Lead

19. 18 SpaceLiner 100 Propulsion Task Force Functional 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

20. 19 Introduction Systems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability - Supporting 3 rd Generation RLV/SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements- The Functional Requirements Team of the national Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST) is developing the NASA ASTP 3 rd 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 achieve- ment of program goals This Influence Diagramming technique is used to construct and numerically exercise a system development algorithm

21. 20 Algorithm Development Process Systems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability - Supporting 3 rd 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

22. 21 Conclusions Systems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability - Supporting 3 rd 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

23. 22

24. 23

25. 24

26. 25

27. 26 LOW DDT&E ACQUISITION COST 10,000 X SAFER OPERABLE LOW RECURRING COST RESPONSIVE LOW NON- RECURRING COST INVESTORS INCENTIVE LOW LIFE CYCLE COST SAFE 3/22/01 DEPENDABLE INHERENT 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 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 NON-RECURRING INVESTMENT GEN3 GOALS 100X CHEAPER COST, $/LB FLEET PURCHASE

28. 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. Growth1.62. Operation and Support 7.60 Initial Acquisition0.00 Vehicle/System Replacement2.74 Dependable 22.21 Highly Reliable (hardware)3.80 Intact Vehicle Recovery2.53 Mission Success0.68 Operate on Command7.60 Robustness3.80 Design Certainty 3.80 Responsive 45.41 Flexible1.22. Resiliency2.74. Launch on Demand1.22 Capacity1.22 Operable (Operations) (39.01). Process Verification 2.53. Auto Sys. Health Verification7.60. Auto Sys. Corrective Action7.60. Ease of Vehicle/Sys. Integration1.22. Maintainable4.86. Simple7.60. Easily Supportable 7.60 Programmatic Criteria Program Acquisition Phase (DDT&E) 100. Cost25. Schedule15. Investor Incentive25. Risk25. Technology Options10 Technology R&D Phase 100. Cost30. Benefit Focused 30. Schedule 15. Risk15. Dual Use Potential10 Systems Approach to Dependable, Responsive, Safe, and Affordable Space Transportation - Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements - Operational Phase Attributes (cont) Weight Safety 10.12 Vehicle Safety2.53 Personnel Safety2.53 Public Safety2.53 Equipment and Facility Safety2.53 Environmental Compatibility 7.91 Minimum Impact on Space Environment2.43 Minimum Effect on Atmosphere2.74 Minimum Environ. Impact All Sites 2.74 Public Support 0.00 Benefit GNP0.00 Social Perception0.00 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

29. 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 Systems Approach to Dependable, Responsive, Safe, and Affordable Space Transportation - Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements - 100X CHEAPER COST, $/LB 10,000 X SAFER OPERABLE LOW RECURRING COST RESPONSIVE LOW LIFE CYCLE COST SAFE DEPENDABLE INHERENT 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 FLEET PURCHASE ATTRIBUTES COLOR KEY COST FOCUS

30. 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 RELIABLE HARDWARE ROBUST DESIGN SIMPLE ( 45.11 - Components sum) SIMPLE 7.60 PROCESS VERIFICATION INTCT VEH RCVRY 2.53 ROBUST 3.80 DSGN 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 RELIABILITY DEPENDABLE 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

31. 30 Systems Approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability - Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -

32. 31 Systems Approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability - Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -

33. 32 Bottom-Up Identification of Technology Solutions to RLV Development Impediments Jay Penn, Lead

34. 33 Integrated Technology Team Participants Jay Penn – Team LeadAerospace Corporation Dan LevackBoeing/Rocketdyne Russel RhodesKSC John RobinsonBoeing Bill PannellMSFC Bruce FlemingLM Space Systems Bryan DeHoffAerospace Tech. Services Carey McCleskeyKSC Clyde DenisonNorthrup/Grumman Constantine SalvadorPratt & Whitney David ChristensenLM Space Systems Glenn LawAerospace Corporation John OldsGeorgia Tech Mike SklarBoeing/KSC Pat OdomSAIC Walter DankhoffSAIC

35. 34 NASA / ASTP Garry Lyles, Director National Space Policy Strategic Direction SPST Steering Committee SL100 Functional Requirements Team # 1 Russ Rhodes, KSC Assessment Criteria Transportation Architectures Team # 2 John Robinson, Boeing Products To MSFC / ASTP Technologies Assessment & Prioritization Workshop Team # 4 Dr. Pat Odom, SAIC Technologies Identification Preparation of White Papers Team # 3 Dan Levack Boeing, Rocketdyne Programming Factors “Bottoms Up” Assessment Team # 5 Jay Penn, Aero Identify “Impediments” Brainstorm “Solutions” System Concepts Technologies Work Flow Plan

36. 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

37. 36 Key ITT Findings/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)

38. 37 Collaborative Prioritization of Bottom-Up Technologies Pat Odom, Lead

39. 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) > 3 rd Gen RLV top-down technologies (Apr’ 2000) In April 2001 a national SPST workshop prioritized potential bottom-up technology solutions for impediments to achieving 3 rd Gen RLV program goals (using the same evaluation criteria as 3 rd Gen RLV top-down process to allow merging results) The results apply to 2 nd Gen systems as well

40. 39 Candidate Technology Areas The SPST bottom-up assessment process Identified 26 candidate technology solution Areas organized into 6 propulsion related categories: 1. IVHM Technologies 2. Margin Technologies 3. Operations Technologies 4. Safety Technologies 5. Thermal Control Technologies 6. Technologies to Reduce No. Systems

41. 40 Workshop Participants Programmatic Evaluators Technical Evaluators Ben Donahue Drew DeGeorge Dr. John Olds Boeing AFRL Georgia Tech Vic Giuliano Dr. Clark Hawk Dr. Jay Penn Pratt&Whitney UAH Aerospace Corp Dave Goracke Larry Hunt W. T. Powers Boeing Rocketdyne NASA LRC NASA MSFC Dr. John Hutt Dave McGrath John Robinson NASA MSFC Thiokol Boeing Pete Mitchell Dr. Charles Merkle Costante Salvator SAIC UTSI Pratt&Whitney Phil Sumrall Scott Miller Larry Talafuse NASA Hqs General Dynamics Lockheed Martin An Industry, Government and Academia Team

42. 41 Collaborative AHP Data Entry Pivot Technology Each of Candidate Technologies for Given Technology Category Pairwise Comparisons Against Each Criterion Evaluation Criteria Each Evaluator Strength of Comparisons on Saaty Scale SAIC ITIPS Software Collaborative Prioritization Results

43. 42

44. 43

45. 44

46. 45

47. 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 2 nd and 3 rd Gen RLV systems development

48. 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 (37 th Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit)

49. 48 Summary and Plans for FY 2002 SPST Activities

50. 49 Consistent Findings and Conclusions Prior to Design and Development Phase 1.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

51. 50 Consistent Findings and Conclusions System Design and Development Phase 1.Rigorously enforce all of the Functional/Operational requirements 2.Adhere to all of the design criteria 3.Focus on Systems Dependability and Operability. At least equal to focus on performance 4.Use evolutionary approaches wherever possible. Reduce risk from major revolutionary change.

52. 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 3 rd 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

53. 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

54. 53 Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002 3. Identify and recommend system engineering and management processes needed to meet 3 rd 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

55. 54 Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002 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

56. 55 Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002 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)

57. 56 Discussion and Feedback