A growing chorus suggests that America needs to upgrade its existing fleet of expendable launch vehicles. The Titan, Atlas and Delta are all derived from ballistic missiles that were originally developed in the 1950s. Since then, they have been considerably modified to improve their ability to launch satellites. But additional improvements are both possible and needed. In April 1992 the Commerce Department's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee recommended a program for upgrading our existing fleet of launch vehicles. Despite its modest price tag and the great benefits of this program, no action has been taken on these recommendations.
However, other proponents suggest that America also needs realistic and achievable plans for the next generation of launch vehicles. It is suggested that our existing rockets must be improved and we must establish fair trade agreements. But these measure will not be enough. Eventually new and more capable launch vehicles will be needed. Unfortunately, the Bush/Quayle Administration failed to chart a clear course for the future.
Today there are four different programs to develop future launch vehicles. The National Launch System is intended to develop a new family of conventional rockets. The National Aerospace Plane program, sometimes referred to as the Orient Express, is intended to develop a winged, air-breathing launch vehicle that can reach orbit without needing additional booster rockets. The Delta Clipper program hopes to combine the best features of both of these programs. And efforts continue on improving the Space Shuttle.
Combined, these projects cost a billion dollars this year, at a time when money is difficult to find. The price-tag on completing development of any one of them will be at least ten billion dollars, money that will be very difficult to find. The US may be able to finance the development of one new launch system. But it will certainly not be able to afford them all.
The American space shuttle program is well on the road to recovery from the Challenger accident of January 1986. However, major uncertainties remain concerning the Shuttle's maximum flight rate(1) and safety. These successes have not altered the American military decision to cease reliance on the Shuttle system.(2) Indeed, although previous plans had called for two Defense Department missions on the Shuttle each year throughout the 1990's,(3) by early 1989 the Air Force decided to completely withdraw from the Shuttle after 1993, flying only those Shuttle missions that had been paid for prior to the Challenger accident.(4)
The military's expendable launch vehicle program got off to a slow start, with inaugural launches planned for 1988 slipping into 1989.(5) But despite this slow beginning, total spending on expendable launch vehicles from 1989 through 1994 is slated approach $10 billion.(6)
The centerpiece of the military's launch vehicle program is the Titan 4.(7) Engineering problems delayed the initial launch from October 1988 to June 1989,(8) and the Titan 4 development program experienced a $208 million cost overrun.(9) Additional difficulties have been encountered with the Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade program which is intended to increase the payload of the booster.(10) Despite these problems, a new contract for 18 of these boosters brought the total order to 41, at a cost of about $7 billion.(11) Of these boosters, 13 will be used by the Air Force(12) for launching Milstar communications satellites and DSP early warning satellites, while the remaining 28 will be used to launch KH-12 photo reconnaissance and Lacrosse imaging radar satellites.
The first flight of the Delta 2, carrying a Navstar navigation satellite, was delayed from late 1988 to 14 February 1989, due to a variety of minor problems, and subsequent launches also experienced delays.(13) The initial order for 20 Delta 2's has been marred by a $140 million cost overrun,(14) which was somewhat surprising given the relatively minor changes the Delta 2 represented compared with prior versions of the Delta.(15) Despite these problems, subsequent orders are anticipated at a rate of four per year in the mid-to-late 1990's to maintain the Navstar navigation satellite constellation.(16)
A total of 14 Titan 2's are on order, for launching Naval Space-Based Wide Area Surveillance System satellites, DMSP military weather satellites, NOAA civilian weather satellites, and the LANDSAT 6 resource monitoring satellite.(17) The second Titan 2 flight came on 6 September 1989, with the successful launch of an Air Force Space Based Wide Area Surveillance System radar satellite.
Other booster developments in 1989 included the final Titan 34D was launched on 4 September 1989,(18) and continued work on the Atlas 2, which will be used primarily for DSCS III communications satellites.(19)
Advanced American Launch Systems
In addition to these traditional booster programs, four new launch systems are also under development. The Pegasus and Taurus rockets are intended to support small military satellite programs in the near-term. The Advanced Launch System (ALS) and the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program, initiated by the Reagan Administration in the mid-1980's, are directed at very ambitious long-term objectives. During 1989, increased emphasis was devoted to Pegasus and Taurus, while ALS and NASP were greatly reduced in scope. Indeed, in this regard, the first year of the Bush Administration witnessed the dismantlement of some of the central elements of the Reagan Administration's launch vehicle program.
The American military's interest in smaller satellites has been matched by an effort sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the new small boosters that would be needed to launch such satellites. Most prominent of these is the Pegasus, a two-stage solid fuel winged booster that would be air-launched, initially from the same B-52 that was used to launch the X-15 experimental aircraft in the 1960's.(20) The initial flights of Pegasus will carry a variety of experimental scientific and engineering test satellites,(21) with each flight costing about $10 million,(22) comparable to the launch cost of other small launchers such as the Scout. As a result of problems encountered during initial captive carry tests, the first flight, initially planned for July 1989,(23) was delayed to no sooner than March 1990.(24)
Based on their successful development of Pegasus, Orbital Sciences Corporation and Hercules were awarded a contract to develop a more powerful, ground-launched Standard Small Launch Vehicle (SSLV), with an initial flight anticipated in the second quarter of 1991.(25) This new Taurus booster, which consists of a first stage from the MX Peacekeeper ICBM, and a second and third stage based on the two stages of the Pegasus, will be able to place about 450 kilograms into polar orbit at a cost of $16 million.(26) Later growth versions are projected to have double this capacity, as well as the ability to place over 150 kilograms in geosynchronous orbit.(27) The anticipated Taurus launch rate is planned to grow from 2 flights in 1991, to as many as six or seven per year by 1995.(28)
The Advanced Launch System (ALS) emerged in the mid-1980's as the rocket that would be used to deploy the space-based elements of the Strategic Defense Initiative program. Because the SDI was initially projected to require many thousands of tons of payload to low Earth orbit, ALS was intended to reduce the cost of space transportation by an order of magnitude, from about $10,000 per kilogram to less than $1,000 per kilogram.(29) Thus the Bush Administration inherited a plan for development of the Advanced Launch System that called for the Defense Acquisition Board to approve advanced development of the system in early 1990, leading to a first flight in 1998 and a full operational capability in 2000.(30) This effort would lead to the development of a modular family of launch vehicles, with a payload capacity to low Earth orbit ranging from 5,000 kilograms to 200,000 kilograms, that would replace existing expendable launch vehicles in the 2000-2005 time frame.(31)
However, by late 1989 it had become increasingly apparent that the requirements for the ALS program had largely disappeared.(32) The initial phase of SDI would be deployed using existing Titan 4 and Atlas 2 rockets, and the launch requirements for subsequent phases of SDI deployment were too vague to require immediate development of ALS.(33) With total development cost of ALS pegged at $15 billion through its first flight in 1998,(34) the need for ALS seemed increasing doubtful.(35) By year's end the ALS program, once the centerpiece of space planning, had been reduced to a $150 million per year propulsion development effort.(36)
The most ambitious of the new American launch vehicle programs is the National Aero-space Plane (NASP) project, officially known as the X-30, and unofficially as the Orient Express. Begun in 1985, NASP aimed to develop a new type of super-sonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) engine that could propel an aircraft to near-orbital speeds.(37) Potential military missions included air defense or reconnaissance. As a space launch vehicle, NASP was thought to promise aircraft-style safety and convenience with operating costs that would be a fraction of those of conventional rockets or the Space Shuttle.
But by early 1989 there were increasing doubts that NASP would find military missions other than space launch,(38) as well as growing concerns about the technical feasibility of the concept.(39) Based on these concerns, the Air Force decided in early 1989 to withdraw its support from the project.(40) Initial planning for the X-30 program had anticipated total funding of $570 million in 1990, and $620 million in 1991, with most of this money coming from the Air Force.(41) In an effort to save the project, the National Space Council gained Congressional support for a revised plan, with $254 million for 1990 and $277 million for 1991, about evenly divided between NASA and the Air Force.(42) This reduction in funding delayed the decision on proceeding with the prototype program from September 1990 to March 1993,(43) the first flight from 1994 to 1996, and the first orbital flight from 1996 to after 1998.(44)
The end of the military competition with the Soviet Union heightened political concerns over economic competition with Europe and Japan, notably in the area of launch vehicles. The report on The Future of the U.S. Space Launch Capability, recommended that "A single `core' space launch vehicle should be perused that, through modular performance improvements, can meet all the medium and heavier lift requirements (20,000 to 50,000 pounds to low earth orbit) of civil, DoD, and commercial users." This new "Spacelifter" booster was intended to provide lower launch costs and greater reliability and flexibility than existing systems, which have evolved from ballistic missiles originally developed nearly four decades ago.
This proposal followed on the failure of the Bush Administration to secure Congressional support for the National Launch System (NLS), a family of intermediate and heavy launch vehicles which would support military and commercial missions, and well as the Space Exploration Initiative.
However, many in Congress regarded the new Spacelifter as little more than a new name for NLS. And during the 1992 campaign, Gore had criticized the Bush Administration for initiating an unaffordable diversity of launch vehicle development projects, particularly citing the NLS. Instead, Gore advocated a less costly strategy focused on up-grades to existing launch systems, such as the Delta, Atlas and Titan. Although the 1994 Clinton Defense budget included a modest request for Spacelifter, it is clear that the development of new launch vehicles does not occupy a central place in the new Administration's space strategy.
A - Air Force
ESMC & WSMC Improvements & Modernization (I&M)
The Eastern Space and Missile Center is the nation's primary space launch site. The Western Space and Missile Center is the nation's primary space launch site for polar-orbit missions and for the testing of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. The various capabilities of these Centers, such as radar tracking, telemetry reception, optical tracking, and communications, are essential to the space launch and test operations.
12449F Space Shuttle(45)
Includes personnel authorizations, peculiar and support equipment, necessary facilities and the associated costs specifically identified and measurable to the reusable Space Shuttle developed by NASA as a national space launch and retrieval system. It was intended to replace the present expendable launch vehicle family, by offering the potential for improved space mission capability, along with the operational advantages inherent with rapid routine access to space. The ability to retrieve payloads from orbit led to new mission concepts, such as refurbishment and reuse of satellites, as well as the use of the Shuttle for payload development and scientific purposes. The Air Force, as DoD Executive Agent for this program, sought to ensure that the Shuttle could accommodate DoD space missions. To satisfy the DoD requirement for synchronous orbits and high altitude missions, an upper stage was required to transfer these types of missions from low earth orbit to higher altitudes. The DoD agreed to provide by 1980 the initial simplified version of this upper stage, to be called the Interim Upper Stage (IUS). The DoD also agreed to provide by late 1982, or as soon thereafter as funding permited, a minimum-cost shuttle capability at Vandenberg Air Force Base to satisfy the DoD requirement to place payloads in Polar orbits.
35119F Space Boosters (Expendable)(46)
National Security requirements dictate a continuing, highly reliable means of placing critical Department of Defense (DoD) satellites into required orbits. Assured access to space, directed by the President in the National Security Launch Strategy, will be accomplished through the use of a robust mix of Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs). The Medium Launch Vehicle (MLV) program provides procurement and launch of DoD ELVs, including Atlas II and Delta II at Cape Canaveral AFS, FL and Delta II, Atlas II, and Atlas E at Vandenberg AFB, CA. Pegasus will be supported by the Western and Eastern Test Ranges. This program also provides for engineering support of active launch programs and post-flight assessment of DoD ELVs to maintain their high reliability.
Includes RDT&E funds used for efforts managed by the Space and Missile Systems organizations of AFSC. Some funding may be used for supplies and equipment peculiar to the Space Booster Program. Program includes RDT&E, missile procurement, and a&M funds for TITAN III space booster launch service and system improvements. Funds are Included for system improvement and, beginning in FY 1976, for launch services for ATLAS E/F launch vehicles. Excludes civilian and military personnel and their related costs and military construction costs which are included In appropriate management and support elements in Program 6.
The responsible Air Force agency is Air Force Material Command's Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, CA. Systems engineering is provided by the Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Delta II contractors include: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Corporation, Huntington Beach, CA (prime contractor); Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division, Canoga Park, CA (stage 1 rocket engines); Aerojet Liquid Rocket Company, Sacramento, CA (stage 2 rocket engines); General Motors, Delco Electronics Division, Santa Barbara, CA (guidance); Morton Thiokol, Huntsville, AL and Elkton, MD (solid rocket motors); Hercules Corporation, Magna, UT (solid rocket motors). Atlas Contractors include: General Dynamics, Space Systems Division, San Diego, CA (integration, Centaur upper stage and airframe) and Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division, Canoga Park, CA (rocket engines).
Access to space, directed by the President in the National Security Launch Strategy, will be accomplished for small Government payloads through the use of the small air launch vehicles (SLV). Primary SLV support is provided to Pegasus air launched vehicles supported by western and eastern launch ranges.
The responsible Air Force agency is Air Force Material Command's Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, CA. Pegasus contractors are: Orbital Sciences Corporation, Fairfax, VA (prime contractor); Hercules Aerospace Corporation, Magna, UT (solid rocket motor); Scaled Composites, Mojave, CA (composite wing).
35138F Upper Stage Space Vehicles(47)
The Upper Stages Program was initiated to provide consolidated acquisition of upper stages to support the DOD Mission Model. The majority of the Upper Stages effort is in support of the Initial Upper Stage (IUS). The effort includes flight operations at the Eastern Launch Site (ELS), FL and support to flight operations at the Consolidated Space Test Center (CSTC), and reimbursable acquisition and operations support of upper stages for NASA as documented in MOA/MOU's between USAF and NASA All remaining AF lUSs will launch Defense Support Program Satellites from the East Coast. Analyses support the study of anomalies and design funding supports the redesign of outdated equipment. We also do centralized management for the definition of changes to the NASA Cargo Transfer Vehicle based on validated DOD user requirements. Lastly, the program continuously evaluates and improves upper stage reliability, cost effectiveness, and responsiveness.
Project 4053. Upper Stage Development (Inertial Upper Stage!: Provides quick response studies and analyses by the prime contractor in support of mission requirements. Effort includes improving mission effectiveness, anomaly testing and resolution, variance analyses, and resolution of problems during launch preparation. Provides independent verification and validation of flight software for each IUS vehicle prior to launch to insure there are no mission impacts caused by improper software. Related activities include 63105F Olympic.
The responsible AF agency is AF Materiel Command's Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, CA Systems engineering is provided by the Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA. The prime contractor for IUS, associated integration, engineering support and launch support is Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle, WA. Independent verification of flight software is performed by Martin Marietta Corporation, Denver, CO.
Project XXX2. SNTP Program: The objective of this program was to provide the technology base, design, develop, integrate, and validate, via ground test, a prototype nuclear rocket engine for a variety of exo-atmospheric applications. The Program was offered to DOE and they did not accept. The Air Force plans to terminate with FY 93 resources.
The responsible AF agency is AF Materiel Command's Space and Missile Systems Center's Phillips Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM. The program office was managed by DOD, but the AF attempted to transfer program to DOE or NASA. Systems engineering is provided by Xerad, Santa Monica CA. System integration is Grumman Space Systems Division, Bethpage, NY. Other efforts are contracted with: Garrett Fluid Systems Division (Allied Signal), Tempe, AZ; Hercules Aerospace company, Magna, UT; Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, VA; Aerojet TechSystems Company, Sacramento, CA; General Dynamics Space Systems, San Diego, CA.
35144F Titan Space Launch Vehicles(48)
National Security requirements dictate a continuing, highly reliable means of placing critical DOD satellites into required orbits. The Titan IV program provides the capability to launch the largest of these satellites into near-earth or geosynchronous orbits from either the east or west coast launch facilities. This program is developing several different configurations for the Titan IV (No Upper Stage (NUS), Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), and Centaur). In addition, the Titan IV program is developing a Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU) and new programmable avionics and ground support equipment to meet reliability and increased performance requirements. This program provides continuing integration support to the payload community as well as continuing engineering support and post-flight analyses to enhance system characterization and reliability. Titan IV performance, by configuration is summarized below:
Configuration Orbit Performance (Ibs to orbit
Titan IV/Centaur/SRM Geosynchronous 10,000
Titan IWCentaur/SRMU Geosynchronous 11,500
Titan IV/IUS Geosynchronous 5,200
Titan IV/NUS/SRM Low Earth (Polar) 31,100
Titan IV/NUS/SRMU Low Earth (East) 47,800
The Program Executive Officer for Space is responsible for program management, with the program office located at Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, CA. Systems engineering is provided by the Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA. Prime contractor is Marlin Marietta Corp, Denver, CO.
35170F Space Support Program(49)
Includes personnel authorizations, peculiar and support equipment, necessary facilities and the associated costs specifically identified and measurable to provide THOR missile launch support to Air Force Systems Command for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) from Vandenberg AFB, CA, and to the Defense Nuclear Agency for High Altitude Program (HAP) portion of the National Nuclear Test Readiness Program (NNTRP) from Johnston Island. Resources include those associated with the launch emplacements, guidance, and tracking radars, and data processing equipment, including computer programming and maintenance.
35171F Space Launch Support Upper Stages(50)
Provide IUS, IUS launch services and reimbursement to NASA for space shuttle launches to support the RDT&E space test program and operational space programs. The operational space programs supported are AFSATCOM, NAVSTAR Global Positioning System, Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, Defense Satellite Communications System, Defense Support Program and Satellite Data System; RDT&E funds used for IUS procurement, IUS launch services and reimbursement to NASA for space shuttle launches to support RDT&E programs; O&M funds used for reimbursement to NASA for space Shuttle launches to support operational programs and to operate the shuttle launch facilities at Vandenberg AFB, California.
35181F Western Space Launch Facility(51)
The Western Range is the nation's primary space launch site for polar-orbit missions and for the testing of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. The various capabilities of the Western Range, such as radar tracking, telemetry reception, optical tracking, and communications, are essential to the space launch and test operations. Virtually all range systems are aging, increasingly unmaintainable, and are based on an inefficient architecture. Replacement of the aging systems is a necessity, and the Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) project is designed to make these replacements to produce a more efficient range infrastructure, capable of providing superior support at lower operating cost. The RSA project will develop an integrated range system, using remote control and automation techniques to reduce operating manpower requirements and produce improved responsiveness. The primary development of RSA will be done under the Eastern Range Program Element (35182F). The designs developed for the Eastern Range will be applied to the Western Range in order to reduce development costs and ensure commonality. The RSA RDT&E funding for the Western Range will be used to adapt the Eastern Range designs for the requirements of the Western Range. RSA is critical to the future of the launch ranges; performance and cost goals cannot be achieved without RSA.
35182F Eastern Space Launch Facility(52)
The Eastern Range is the nation's primary space launch site. The various capabilities of the Eastern Range, such as radar tracking, telemetry reception; optical tracking, and communications, are essential to the launch of space missions and the testing of ballistic missiles. Virtually all range systems are aging, increasingly unmaintainable, and are based on an inefficient architecture. Replacement of the aging systems is a necessity, and the Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) project is designed to make these replacements so as to produce a more efficient range in structure, capable of providing superior support at lower operating cost. The RSA project will develop an integrated range system, using remote control and automation techniques to reduce operating manpower requirements and produce improved responsiveness RSA is critical to the future of the launch ranges; performance and cost goals cannot be achieved without RSA.
Work is performed by Computer Sciences / Raytheon, located at Patrick AFB, FL. The contract for the RSA design, development, and installation effort will be awarded competitively.
62302F Rocket Propulsion and Astronautics Technology
Project 06RL. Laboratory Operations
Project 3058. Space Systems Propulsion Technology(53)
This Science and Technology (S&T) program element (PE) develops rocket propulsion and space vehicle technology. This program conducts exploratory development to transition the most promising technologies into component and subsystem applications to demonstrate feasibility and potential payoffs. Technologies of interest are those which will improve reliability, operability, survivability, affordability, environmental compatibility, and performance of future propulsion systems. Technologies which are demonstrated to have significant payoff in this program are transitioned to Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion (PE 0603302F) or Advanced Spacecraft Technology (PE 0603401F) where they are further developed for transition to specific space or missile systems.
Project 06RL. Laboratory Operations: Project 06RL provides for the management, support, and operation of the Phillips Laboratory. It maintains test and experiment infrastructure and facilities used for key in-house efforts; provides for the pay and related costs of civilian scientists, engineers, and support personnel; transportation of equipment; rents; communications and utilities costs; reproduction services; and procurement of supplies, equipment, and contractor support services for these facilities. Funds from this continuing project support and complement the other projects in this PE.
Project 3058. Space Systems Propulsion Technology: This project develops and demonstrates advanced space systems rocket propulsion technology to meet the projected Air Force requirements. In the past, accomplishments of this project have contributed to national space launch capability including Space Shuttle, Titan, Atlas, and Delta. Technologies to be investigated under this project include revolutionary new approaches to develop a "simple" cryogenic turbopump with hydrostatic bearings to enable engine reusability. High performance thrust cell technology is being investigated for modular, reusable liquid engines This program also investigates and develops technologies for solar, electric, and high energy density materials (HEDM) propulsion systems; concepts which will dramatically increase the capability of future space propulsion systems. Anticipated technology advances in this project will increase the reusability of liquid propulsion engines from three flights to over 50 flights, increase the payload capability of existing expendable launch systems seven percent, reduce the number of parts for cryogenic turbopumps by 80 percent, and integrate high energy density material propellants into future space propulsion systems increasing the delivered specific impulse of propellants by 50 percent which will result in a ten-fold increase in vehicle payload capability. Rocket propulsion technologies being investigated in this project will enhance continuous improvement to current and future space lift and on-orbit transfer vehicles by including considerations for reusable liquid engines and improved operability of existing liquid engines. The long-term investment strategy of this project is to develop advanced propulsion system technologies which will revolutionize national space transportation opportunities by dramatically reducing development, operational, and launch costs of future space transportation systems. These investments will also allow the domestic propulsion and spacecraft industries to transition improved capability for competitive commercial space transportation systems.
This project is managed by the Phillips Laboratory Propulsion and Space and Missile Technologies Directorates at Edwards AFB, CA, and Kirtland AFB, NM. The major contractors are: Aerojet Propulsion, Sacramento, CA; Hercules Aerospace Company, Magna, UT; General Dynamics Space Systems, San Diego, CA; Rockwell Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, and United Technologies/Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, FL.
63269F NASP National Aerospace Plane(54)
This program element funds the DoD portion of the joint, Presidentially-directed (reaffirmed and updated in July 1989) DoD/NASA technology development and demonstration program for a National Aero-Space Plane (NASP). The goal of the NASP program is to develop the technological basis for runway-launched space transportation vehicles capable of hypersonic flight in the atmosphere. The technologies are planned to be demonstrated in a flight research vehicle, the X-30, which is envisioned to be an experimental air-breathing, hydrogen-fueled, SSTO vehicle capable of operating (horizontal takeoff/landing) from conventional runways. Following successful demonstration, the technologies will provide the basis for military and civil vehicles capable of global un-refueled operation, routine, "on-demand" access to near space, and flexibly-based rapid-response space launch. Future NASP-derived vehicles (NDVs) could satisfy mission need statements and could provide increases in military capabilities.
This is a joint DoD/NASA program. Joint Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, executes the program. Technology development is conducted by contractors, universities, and DoD and NASA laboratories and centers. The national contractor team is managed by a National Program Office located at Palmdale, CA. Contractors for engine development are: Pratt and Whitney, West Palm Beach, FL; and Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA. Airframe design and component development contractors are: Lockheed, Fort Worth, TX; McDonnell Douglas, Saint Louis, NO; and Rockwell, Downey, CA. The contractors formed a national team in May 1990 ant are now pursuing a single X-30 airframe and engine design.
63411F Space Shuttle(55)
Includes RDT&E funds for the contractual effort managed by the Space and Missile Systems Center of the Air Force Materiel Command. Funds may be used for supplies and equipment peculiar to the program. Excludes civilian and military personnel and their related costs and military construction costs which are included in appropriate management and support elements in this program.
64408F Advanced Launch System / National Launch System / Spacelifter(56)
Numerous studies by DoD and independent groups have confirmed the need for a new spacelift system with lower costs, higher reliability, and greater operability than current systems. When Congress directed the cancellation of the National Launch System (NLS) program as part of the FY 93 appropriation conference report language, the Air Force sought other ways of meeting the requirement The Air Force is convinced that a lower Cost more reliable, and more operable spacelift system is needed by DoD, civil. and commercial space programs. The effort described will explore different concepts to determine the best approach to meet future spacelift needs. Recent work has focused on demonstration propulsion technologies relating to the development of the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME).
The responsible AF agency is AF Materiel Command's Space and Missile Center, Los Angeles AFB, CA. Systems engineering is provided by the Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo CA and TRW, San Bernardino, CA.
64411F Space Shuttle(57)
Includes RDT&E funds for development of the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) to boost DoD and NASA spacecraft from the low altitude Space Shuttle orbits to higher altitude mission orbits; development and acquisition of a Space Shuttle launch and landing capability at Vandenberg AFB, CA. to support launches of DoD and NASA spacecraft into low earth orbits; development of common payload integration equipment, unique around support equipment, software and security systems to support DoD mission requirements; and studies and analyses to increase the DoD use of, and benefits from, the unique capabilities of the Space Transportation System. Excludes civilian and military personnel and their related costs which are included in appropriate management and support elements. Equipment procurement and military construction costs directly associated with the program are included under PE 12449F, Space Shuttle. Air Force RDT&E efforts through FY 1978 which are funded under 63411F.
78019F Eastern Test Range
The Eastern Range is the nation's primary space launch site. The various capabilities of the Eastern Range, such as radar tracking, telemetry reception; optical tracking, and communications, are essential to the launch of space missions and the testing of ballistic missiles.
78022F Western Test Range
The Western Range is the nation's primary space launch site for polar-orbit missions and for the testing of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.
B - Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
63224D-13 Space Logistics
The results of the Defense Technologies Study clearly indicated a requirement to significantly upgrade currently programmed space transportation systems and provide additional space logistics capabilities. Even with programmed improvements, the Space Transportation System (STS) will be unable to satisfy anticipated SDI requirements in a cost effective manner. There is a potential need to develop a heavy-lift launch vehicle for placing platforms of over one hundred thousand kilograms in mass into near earth orbit. In addition, capabilities to service, on orbit, a variety of space assets and to transfer satellites from low orbits to high orbits and to return them or move them from on orbit to another will likely be required. The requirement for a capability to orbit on demand large numbers of sensor or weapons platforms could emerge out of system concept studies.
C- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
63226E Experimental Evaluation
EE-27 Pegasus & Taurus
The American military's interest in smaller satellites has been matched by an effort sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the small boosters that would be needed to launch such satellites. Most prominent of these is the Pegasus, a two-stage solid fuel winged booster that was air-launched, initially from the same B-52 that was used to launch the X-15 experimental aircraft in the 1960's.(58) The initial flights of Pegasus carried a variety of experimental scientific and engineering test satellites, with each flight costing about $10 million, comparable to the launch cost of other small launchers such as the Scout.
Based on their successful development of Pegasus, Orbital Sciences Corporation and Hercules were awarded a contract to develop a more powerful, ground-launched Standard Small Launch Vehicle (SSLV), with a first flight initially anticipated in the second quarter of 1991, though now planned for 1994. This new Taurus booster, which consists of a first stage from the MX Peacekeeper ICBM, and a second and third stage based on the two stages of the Pegasus, will be able to place about 450 kilograms into polar orbit at a cost of $16 million(59) Later growth versions are projected to have double this capacity, as well as the ability to place over 150 kilograms in geosynchronous orbit.(60)
63269E NASP National Aerospace Plane
This program element funds the elements of the joint, Presidentially-directed (reaffirmed and updated in July 1989) DoD/NASA technology development and demonstration program for a National Aero-Space Plane (NASP). The goal of the NASP program is to develop the technological basis for runway-launched space transportation vehicles capable of hypersonic flight in the atmosphere. The technologies are planned to be demonstrated in a flight research vehicle, the X-30, which is envisioned to be an experimental air-breathing, hydrogen-fueled, SSTO vehicle capable of operating (horizontal takeoff/landing) from conventional runways.
D - National Reconnaissance Office
USAF Special Activities
The Air Force budget for launch vehicles for unclassified spacecraft state that these request do not cover launch vehicles for other, "Classified Users." Funding for launch vehicles for NRO programs is covered under the RDT&E Air Force line item Special Activities.
It is clear that 34111 Special Activities funds the NRO, since unclassified Program Element Descriptive Summaries budget documents state that this budget item funds construction of support facilities for four classified spacecraft at Vandenberg AFB, CA, the primary NRO launch facility.
1. Post-Challenger Assessment of Space Shuttle Flight Rates and Utilization, (National Research Council, Washington, DC, October 1986).
2. "Military Launcher Program Meeting Critical Milestones," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1 February 1988, pp. 36-38.
3. "Report on the Fiscal Year 1990 Authorization Request and Budget Estimates for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration," United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, 100th Congress, 1st Session, page 296.
4. Broad, William, "The Military Finds An Alternative to The Space Shuttle," The New York Times, 18 June 1989, page 6E.
5. Kolcum, E., "Air Force Cannot Meet 1989 Launch Schedule," Aviation Week & Space Technology," 23 January 1989, pp. 21-22.
6. "Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991," United States Senate Armed Services Committee, 100th Congress, 1st Session, part 6, page 171.
7. Kolcum, Edward, "Air Force, Contractors Predict Long Life for Heavy-Lift Vehicle," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 17 July 1989, pages 32-34.
8. Kolcum, Edward, "Titan 4, Delta 2 Launches Generate Confidence in Military Space Operations," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 19 June 1989, pages 40-41.
9. Lynch, David, "Air Force Officials Underestimated Cost, Difficulty of Return to Space," Defense Week, 5 September 1989 , page 1, 12.
10. "Air Force Should Continue to Buy Steel Case Solid Rocket Motors," Inside the Pentagon, 16 September 1989, page 21.
11. Kiernan, Vince, "Air Force Orders 18 More Titan 4 Boosters," Space News, 11 December 1989, page 12.
12. "Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991," United States Senate Armed Services Committee, 100th Congress, 1st Session, part 6, page 194.
13. "Parts shortage Delays Delta 2 Launch of Navstar Satellites," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 13 June 1989, page 21.
14. "McDonnell Douglas Delta 2 Booster Suffers $140 million Cost Overrun," Satellite News, 4 December 1989, page 5.
15. Smith, B., "USAF Awards McDonnell Douglas Contract to Build, Operate, MLVs," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 26 january 1988, pp 20-22.
16. "Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991," United States Senate Armed Services Committee, 100th Congress, 1st Session, part 6, page 195.
17. "Martin Converts USAF Titan 2 to Launch Vehicle For Placing Defense Payloads into Polar Orbit,"Aviation Week & Space Technology, 10 August 1987, p. 18.
18. "Last Titan 3 Rocket Lofts a Secret Military Satellite," The Washington Post, 5 September 1989, page A2.
19. "General Dynamics Wins MLV II Competition," Aerospace Daily, 4 May 1988, p. 185.
20. Carroll, H. et al, "Design and Development of Pegasus Propulsion," AIAA Paper 89-2314, 10 July 1989.
21. Smith, Bruce, "Pegasus Air-launched Test Vehicle Is Rolled Out," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 14 August 1989, pages 36-40.
22. Nichols, Robert, "The Winged Horse," Ad Astra, February 1989, pages 30-36.
23. Covault, Craig, "Pegasus Commercial Launch Project to Begin Rocket Motor Test Firings," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 13 February 1989, page 91.
24. "Third Pegasus Test Flight To Validate Fixes, Data Relay System," Aerospace Daily, 17 January 1990, page 91.
25. "Milspace Programs," Military Space, 31 July 1989, page 7.
26. "Space Testing," Military Space, 23 october 1989, page 2.
27. "Space Data Scores Again With DARPA," Space Business News, 7 August 1989, page 1-2.
28. Covault, Craig, "Pegasus, MX Boosters Combined for New Defense Launch Vehicle," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 18 December 1989, pages 47-50.
29. "ALS Contractors Concentrate on Expendable, Reusable Designs," Aerospace Daily, 20 June 1989, page 463.
30. Wolfe, M.G. et al, "The Advanced Launch System." 40th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Malaga Spain, 8-14 October 1989, IAF Paper 89-229.
31. Branscome, D.R., "United States Space Transportation Survey," Proceedings of the 2nd European Aerospace Conference on Progress in Space Transportation, (European Space Agency, ESA SP-293, August 1989), pages 39-44.
32. "Air Force Embraces Expendable Launchers," Military Space, 17 July 1989, page 3-4.
33. "Adams, Peter, "Congress May Consider ALS Too Costly, Sources Say," Defense News, 27 March 1989, page 25.
34. Smith, Bruce, "USAF Cuts Vehicle Design Work On Advanced Launch System," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 18 December 1989, page 112.
35. Finnegan, Philip, "Report: ALS Program Lacks Mission, Should be Pared to Propulsion Study," Defense News, 25 September 1989, page 4.
36. Finnegan, Philip, "U.S. Air Force, NASA Restructure Advanced Launch System Program," Defense News, 15 January 1990, page 1, 25.
37. Lynn, Norman, "Mission to Mach 25," Flight International, 6 May 1989, pages 42-44.
38. Augenstein, Bruno, et al, "Assessment of NASP: Future Options," RAND Working Draft WD-4437-AF, June 1989, reprinted in "The National Aerospace Plane," Joint Hearing of the Science Space and Technology and Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives, 101th Congress 1st Session.
39. Air Force Studies Board, Hypersonic Technology for Military Application, (National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1989).
40. Covault, Craig, "White House Acts to Reverse Aero-Space Plane Cancellation," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 24 April 1989, page 20-21.
41. "NASP" Aerospace Daily, 29 April 1988, page 166.
42. "Space Council Slows NASP Development," Space Business News, 10 July 1989, page 1, 7.
43. "Space Council Stretches Out NASP," Military Space, 17 Jul 1989, page 6.
44. Roesch, Karine, "Superfast 'Space Plane' Off to a Slow Start," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 6 January 1990, page 35-37.
45. 45 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), The Five Year Defense Program; Book 1 FYDP Program Structure, DoD 7045.7-H, August 1984, page 1-26.
46. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 135.
47. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 143.
48. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 146.
49. 49 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), The Five Year Defense Program; Book 1 FYDP Program Structure, DoD 7045.7-H, August 1984, page 3-41
50. 50 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), The Five Year Defense Program; Book 1 FYDP Program Structure, DoD 7045.7-H, August 1984, page 3-41.
51. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 168.
52. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 170.
53. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 288.
54. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 382.
55. 55 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), The Five Year Defense Program; Book 1 FYDP Program Structure, DoD 7045.7-H, August 1984, page 6F-26.
56. Department of the Air Force, Supporting Data for Fiscal Year 1994, Budget Estimate Submission: Descriptive Summaries, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, April 1993, page 585.
57. 57 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), The Five Year Defense Program; Book 1 FYDP Program Structure, DoD 7045.7-H, August 1984, page 6F-55.
58. Carroll, H. et al, "Design and Development of Pegasus Propulsion," AIAA Paper 89-2314, 10 July 1989.
59. "Space Testing," Military Space, 23 october 1989, page 2.
60. "Space Data Scores Again With DARPA," Space Business News, 7 August 1989, page 1-2.