Engineering topics

Underwood, Bruce E.

Publications and source records attributed to Underwood, Bruce E..

3 records

NASA NTRS2005

A NASA Strategy for Leveraging Emerging Launch Vehicles for Routine, Small Payload Missions

Orbital flight opportunities for small payloads have always been few and far between, and then on February 1, 2002, the situation got worse. In the wake of the loss of the Columbia during STS- 107, changing NASA missions and priorities led to the termination of the Shuttle Small Payloads Projects, including Get-Away Special, Hitcbker, and Space Experiment Module. In spite of the limited opportunities, long queue, and restrictions associated with flying experiments on a man-rated transportation system; the carriers provided a sustained, high quality experiment services for education, science, and technology payloads, and was one of the few games in town. Attempts to establish routine opportunities aboard existing ELVs have been unsuccessful, as the cost-per-pound on small ELVs and conflicts with primary spacecraft on larger vehicles have proven prohibitive. Ths has led to a backlog of existing NASA-sponsored payloads and no prospects or plans for fbture opportunities within the NASA community. The prospects for breaking out of this paradigm appear promising as a result of NASA s partnership with DARPA in pursuit of low-cost, responsive small ELVs under the Falcon Program. Through this partnership several new small ELVs, providing 1000 lbs. to LEO will be demonstrated in less than two years that promise costs that are reasonable enough that NASA, DoD, and other sponsors can once again invest in small payload opportunities. Within NASA, planning has already begun. NASA will be populating one or more of the Falcon demonstration flights with small payloads that are already under development. To accommodate these experiments, Goddard s Wallops Flight Facility has been tasked to develop a multi-payload ejector (MPE) to accommodate the needs of these payloads. The MPE capabilities and design is described in detail in a separately submitted abstract. Beyond use of the demonstration flights however, Goddard has already begun developing strategies to leverage these new ELVs as elements of a larger system designed to provide routine, low-cost end-to-end services for small science, Exploration, and education payloads. The plan leverages the management approaches of the successful Sounding Rocket Program and Shuttle Small Payloads Projects. The strategy consists of using a systems implementation approach of elements, including 1) Falcon ELVs, 2) advanced launch site technologies and processes, 3) suite of experiment carriers accommodating different mission requirements, 4) streamlined integration and test operations, 5 ) experiment brokering and management, and 6) standardized, distributed payload operations. The envisioned suite of carriers includes the MPE, a standard interface experiment carrier, and potentially a reentry fieeflyer experiment carrier. Key to the success of this strategy is standard experiment interfaces within the carriers to limit mission- unique tasks, establishmg and managing a program of scheduled reoccurring flights rather than discrete missions, and streamlined, centralized implementation of the elements. These individual elements are each under development and Goddard will demonstrate the overall system strategy low-cost small payload missions on the initial Falcon demonstration launches from Wallops. goal is to show that this model should be converted to a sustained NASA program supporting science, technology, and education, with annual flight opportunities. The paper will define in detail the various elements of the overall program, as well as provide status, philosophy, and strategy for the program that will hopefully once-and-for-all provide low-cost, routine access to space for the small payloads community.

Underwood, Bruce E.↗

NASA NTRS2004

The Wallops Flight Facility Rapid Response Range Operations Initiative

While the dominant focus on short response missions has appropriately centered on the launch vehicle and spacecraft, often overlooked or afterthought phases of these missions have been launch site operations and the activities of launch range organizations. Throughout the history of organized spaceflight, launch ranges have been the bane of flight programs as the source of expense, schedule delays, and seemingly endless requirements. Launch Ranges provide three basic functions: (1) provide an appropriate geographical location to meet orbital other mission trajectory requirements, (2) provide project services such as processing facilities, launch complexes, tracking and data services, and expendable products, and (3) assure safety and property protection to participating personnel and third-parties. The challenge with which launch site authorities continuously struggle, is the inherent conflict arising from projects whose singular concern is execution of their mission, and the range s need to support numerous simultaneous customers. So, while tasks carried out by a launch range committed to a single mission pale in comparison to efforts of a launch vehicle or spacecraft provider and could normally be carried out in a matter of weeks, major launch sites have dozens of active projects separate sponsoring organizations. Accommodating the numerous tasks associated with each mission, when hardware failures, weather, maintenance requirements, and other factors constantly conspire against the range resource schedulers, make the launch range as significant an impediment to responsive missions as launch vehicles and their cargo. The obvious solution to the launch site challenge was implemented years ago when the Department of Defense simply established dedicated infrastructure and personnel to dedicated missions, namely an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile. This however proves to be prohibitively expensive for all but the most urgent of applications. So the challenge becomes how can a launch site provide acceptably responsive mission services to a particular customer without dedicating extensive resources and while continuing to serve other projects? NASA's Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) is pursuing solutions to exactly this challenge. NASA, in partnership with the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, has initiated the Rapid Response Range Operations Initiative (R3Ops). R3Ops is a multi-phased effort to incrementally establish and demonstrate increasingly responsive launch operations, with an ultimate goal of providing ELV-class services in a maximum of 7-10 days from initial notification routinely, and shorter schedules possible with committed resources. This target will be pursued within the reality of simultaneous concurrent programs, and ideally, largely independent of specialized flight system configurations. WFF has recently completed Phase 1 of R3Ops, an in-depth collection (through extensive expert interviews) and software modeling of individual steps by various range disciplines. This modeling is now being used to identify existing inefficiencies in current procedures, to identify bottlenecks, and show interdependencies. Existing practices are being tracked to provide a baseline to benchmark against as new procedures are implemented. This paper will describe in detail the philosophies behind WFF's R3Ops, the data collected and modeled in Phase 1, and strategies for meeting responsive launch requirements in a multi-user range environment planned for subsequent phases of this initiative.

Underwood, Bruce E.↗

NASA NTRS1999

The Wallops Flight Facility Model for an Integrated Federal/Commercial Launch Range

Historically, the federal government has been the predominant purchaser of space launches in the United States. The government met its needs through purchase of hardware and services. It also provided the infrastructure necessary to conduct launch operations through federal launch ranges, both military and NASA. Under this model, the government had the complete ownership, responsibility, liability, and expense for launch activities. As the commercial space sector grew, there emerged a corresponding growth in demand for launch range services. However, the expense and complexity of activities has thus far deterred a rapid rise in the establishment of purely commercial launch sites. In this context, purely commercial is defined as "without benefit of capabilities provided by the federal government." Consistent with the Commercial Space Launch Act, in recent years NASA and the Air Force have supported commercial launches from government launch ranges on a cost-reimbursable, non-interference basis. In this mode the commercial launch service providers contract with the government to provide services including use of facilities, tracking and data services, and range safety. As the commercial market projections began to show significant opportunities for economic development, several states established spaceports to provide the services necessary to meet these projected commercial needs. In 1997, NASA agreed to the establishment of the Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC) at the Wallops Flight Facility. Under this arrangement, NASA agreed to allow Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA) to construct facilities on NASA property and agreed to provide services in accordance with the Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (as amended) to support VSFC launch customers. The relationship between NASA and VCSFA, however, has evolved beyond a customer supplier relationship. A partnership relationship has emerged which pairs the strengths of the established NASA test range and the state-sponsored, commercial launch facility provider, in an attempt to satisfy the needs for flexible, low-cost access to space. Furthermore, the future of the NASA/Wallops Test Range is closely linked with the success of VCSFA in promoting commercial launches from Wallops. This paper will describe the changing paradigm of the federal launch range and the unique aspects of the NASA/Wallops Facility relationship with VCSFA. Discussion will include institutional cost-sharing, business development and marketing, joint educational programs, and strategic planning.

Underwood, Bruce E.↗