SPACEPORT CONCEPT AND TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING

INVESTMENT STEPS TO ROUTINE, LOW COST SPACEPORT SYSTEMS

FINAL REPORT TO THE NASA SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM

Prepared by:

THE VISION SPACEPORT PARTNERSHIP

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John. F. Kennedy Space Center

and

Barker-Ramos Associates, Inc.

Boeing Company

Command and Control Technologies Corp.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems

![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.1395833333333334in" height="1.0in"}

JSRA NCA10-0030

November 2000

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  This report has been prepared under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
  Joint Sponsored Research Agreement (JSRA) NCA10-0030. It has been
  sponsored by the NASA Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and
  Technology (SERT) program.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

[Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[Objective 1](#objective)

[Summary 3](#summary)

[Recommendations 6](#recommendations)

[Introduction 13](#introduction)

[Space Solar Power and Future Enterprises
13](#space-solar-power-and-future-enterprises)

[The Vision Spaceport Partnership 14](#the-vision-spaceport-partnership)

[Spaceports 15](#spaceports)

[Spaceport Functions and Attributes for Improvement
15](#spaceport-functions-and-attributes-for-improvement)

[Spaceport Technology Portfolio Development
16](#spaceport-technology-portfolio-development)

[Roadmap Development Process 16](#roadmap-development-process)

[Goal 17](#goal)

[Customers and Stakeholders 18](#customers-and-stakeholders)

[Performance Requirements 20](#performance-requirements)

[Technology Categories 21](#technology-categories)

[Challenges 25](#challenges)

[Affordability 25](#affordability)

[Spacelift Capability 26](#spacelift-capability)

[Safety 26](#safety)

[Insight into Spaceport Investment Opportunities
27](#insight-into-spaceport-investment-opportunities)

[Assessment Factors 28](#assessment-factors)

[Research and Development 28](#research-and-development)

[Acquisition 29](#acquisition)

[Operations 31](#operations)

[Approach 33](#approach)

[Analysis and Findings 34](#analysis-and-findings)

[Roadmap 37](#roadmap)

[Opportunity Timeframes and Benefits
38](#opportunity-timeframes-and-benefits)

[Near-Term -- Within 5+ Years 40](#near-term-within-5-years)

[Mid-Term -- Within 10+ Years 41](#mid-term-within-10-years)

[Far-Term -- Within 20+ Years 42](#far-term-within-20-years)

[Appendix A 44](#appendix-a)

[Roadmap Development Process 44](#roadmap-development-process-1)

[Appendix B 48](#appendix-b)

[Description of Concept / Technology Improvements
48](#description-of-concept-technology-improvements)

[References and Endnotes 69](#references-and-endnotes)

List of Figures

+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 1.  Space Solar Power (SSP) Suntower and Earth-to-Orbit      | Page  |
|     (ETO) Vehicle.                                           |       |
|                                                              | 13    |
| 2.  The Vision Spaceport Partnership                         |       |
|                                                              | 14    |
| 3.  A Graphical View of Cost versus Benefit                  |       |
|                                                              | 18    |
| 4.  Spaceport Customers and Stakeholders                     |       |
|                                                              | 19    |
| 5.  Global Spacelift Trends                                  |       |
|                                                              | 26    |
| 6.  R&D Factors                                              |       |
|                                                              | 29    |
| 7.  Definition and Acquisition Factors                       |       |
|                                                              | 30    |
| 8.  Benefit Factors                                          |       |
|                                                              | 31    |
| 9.  Notional Example of Cost vs. Benefit 2-Dimensional (2-D) |       |
|     Assessment Approach                                      | 33    |
|                                                              |       |
| 10. Spaceport Technology Categories / White Paper Areas      | 35    |
|     Correlated to R&D and Benefit                            |       |
|                                                              | 36    |
| 11. Spaceport Technology Categories / White Paper Areas      |       |
|     Correlated to Acquisition and Benefit                    | 37    |
|                                                              |       |
| 12. Spaceport Roadmap, Areas Requiring Investment and        | 44    |
|     Maturation to Goals                                      |       |
|                                                              | 45    |
| 13. Roadmap Development Process                              |       |
|                                                              | 46    |
| 14. Derivation of Spaceport Cost Contribution to Space       |       |
|     Transportation System                                    | 47    |
|                                                              |       |
| 15. Spaceport Concept and Technology Challenges, Functions,  |       |
|     and Goal                                                 |       |
|                                                              |       |
| 16. Earth-to-Orbit Transportation & Infrastructure           |       |
|     Technology Approach and Goals                            |       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+

List of Tables

[]{.mark}

+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 1.  Spaceport Functional Breakdown Structure                 | Page  |
|                                                              |       |
| 2.  Qualitative Attributes of a Spaceport                    | 15    |
|                                                              |       |
| 3.  Spaceport Customer and Stakeholders, Perspective         | 16    |
|     Sessions                                                 |       |
|                                                              | 20    |
| 4.  Spaceport Concept and Technology Areas and White Papers  |       |
|                                                              | 22    |
| 5.  R&D Factors                                              |       |
|                                                              | 28    |
| 6.  Definition and Acquisition Factors                       |       |
|                                                              | 29    |
| 7.  Benefit Factors                                          |       |
|                                                              | 31    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+

Acronyms

[]{.mark}

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| ATA          | Air Transport Association                             |
|              |                                                       |
| CLCS         | Checkout and Launch Control System                    |
|              |                                                       |
| COTS         | Commercial-off-the-Shelf                              |
|              |                                                       |
| ETO          | Earth-to-Orbit                                        |
|              |                                                       |
| IT           | Information Technology                                |
|              |                                                       |
| JSRA         | Joint Sponsored Research Agreement                    |
|              |                                                       |
| KSC          | Kennedy Space Center                                  |
|              |                                                       |
| LEO          | Low-Earth-Orbit                                       |
|              |                                                       |
| LH2          | Liquid Hydrogen                                       |
|              |                                                       |
| LOX          | Liquid Oxygen                                         |
|              |                                                       |
| NAS          | National Airspace System                              |
|              |                                                       |
| QFD          | Quality Function Deployment                           |
|              |                                                       |
| R&D          | Research and Development                              |
|              |                                                       |
| RLV          | Reusable Launch Vehicle                               |
|              |                                                       |
| RSA          | Range Safety and Automation                           |
|              |                                                       |
| TRL          | Technology Readiness Level                            |
|              |                                                       |
| SERT         | Space Solar Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and      |
|              | Technology                                            |
| SSP          |                                                       |
|              | Space Solar Power                                     |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

SPACEPORT CONCEPT

AND TECHNOLOGY

ROADMAPPING

FINAL REPORT TO THE NASA SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM

# Executive Summary

## Objective

The concept of collecting solar energy in space through orbiting
platforms and transmitting that energy to Earth for providing electrical
power is one possibility for providing clean, affordable energy for
global needs in the 21^st^ century. The realization of this concept, as
well as multitudes of unimagined ideas, is constrained by a space
transportation infrastructure that is costly and ineffectual for such
large-scale enterprises. Recurring launch costs in the range of
\$100-\$200 per kilogram delivered to orbit are required to enable such
business endeavors. It is clear that space transportation is the
bottleneck that currently constrains space enterprises to the
imaginable.

It is one objective of the Vision Spaceport partnership to derive a
diverse portfolio of Spaceport concepts and technologies that require
investment in order to further, in the next 20 years, a space
transportation infrastructure that can meet the requirements of far
term, open ended growth in space activity. This Spaceport investment, in
complement to necessary advances and investments in space transportation
flight systems, will bring about routine, affordable access to space.

Whereas flight and vehicle specific requirements drive any resulting
Spaceport infrastructure, it is still of necessity that ground systems
investment occur in parallel with flight system maturation. In the same
light by which airports are crucial catalysts for economic growth,
creating employment opportunities and stimulating trade and commerce, so
too Spaceports will become crucial 21^st^ century elements for enhanced
trade, income and prosperity. A global economy dictates the need for
drastic improvements in air and space transportation.

This evolution of space transportation will lead to revolutionary
Spaceports that become hubs of economic, cultural and social activity.
More people will come to participate in voyages that were once the
domain of a select few. Space will become accessible and routine, a
commonplace destination forever growing human activity.

Toward achieving this the authors of this report have documented the
needed Spaceport investment steps in the near, mid, and far term. It is
also the objective of this report to provide insights toward investment
within a structured, traceable, and well documented process that flows
and connects the highest of objectives, such as "routine, daily flights
and \$100 per pound costs", down to the actions and directions that are
needed today.

## Summary

This report is about Spaceports. It is about technology, investments and
a vision in the not too distant future. The vision is about an open
space frontier. The vision is about people participating in voyages that
today are the domain of a select few. Space transportation that is
commonplace and accessible will become a reality. The question is when
and how?

The NASA Space Solar Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and Technology
(SERT) program has directed the Vision Spaceport Partnership to identify
those technologies that will enable the programs ambitious goals. These
goals are ultimately economic. Technology can enable these goals, or as
witnessed today, lack of maturity can hinder an open space frontier.

The Vision Spaceport Partnership has taken the charge to outline the
steps that will lead to routine, low cost Spaceport systems. We have
taken the task to provide insight. This partnership includes NASA, major
aerospace industry corporations, and smaller businesses deeply engaged
in the ideas and issues involved.

The Spaceport Concept and Technology Roadmapping report documents both
process and results. The process has been documented in detail including
goals, customers and stakeholders, performance requirements, areas for
improvement, and assessment factors. The results include a series of
white papers describing Spaceport areas and improvements in each.
Insight gained from this process has resulted in recommendations and a
roadmap connected to goals.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.016666666666667in"
height="3.3444444444444446in"}

*Visions yet to be...(Image © Vision Spaceport Partnership).*

Next steps are also included as a recommendation. Generating insight
over the time span of two to three decades, the time frame considered by
enterprises such as SERT, requires continuous reexamination of progress.
The need for goals is clear. A continuous and watchful eye on these
ambitious goals must always enter into making decisions. Where there are
no goals there can be no insight.

We recommend and conclude that investments that are goal focused can
enable such enterprises as Space Solar Power. Along the way some areas
will improve more quickly than others. Eventually all areas can reach
the finish line, maturing a national Spaceport and space transportation
capability, public and/or private, that provides open-ended economic
opportunity.

## Recommendations

The Vision Spaceport Partnership believes that the following
recommendations will enable continued advancement toward affordable,
routine, and effective transportation to space for people, goods, and
future business opportunities.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 1. A national policy of commitment to Space
  Transportation technology and infrastructure development is required.**
  R&D investment and technology development toward innovating the far
  term technologies that enable ambitious goals is an important and
  appropriate role for government. Infrastructure advances will be
  required for Spaceport facilities, equipment and operations to one day
  support multiple flights per day at tens of dollars per pound of
  payload transported to orbit. These advances include basic research and
  technology development. Basic research can address fundamental
  challenges, whereas crucial technology development is moved forward
  through system wide applications of advanced technology. The later
  includes infrastructure modernization and advanced applications
  development for the specific needs of space transportation and
  spaceport customers and stakeholders.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Differences between basic R&D and technology development and
applications can create a gap[^1] in ownership that keeps the benefits
of much R&D from ever being realized. Spaceport infrastructure is one
such example. As basic R&D in space transportation matures, scientific
and technical interest may wane while interest migrates to newer
challenges and more basic R&D. Using NASA technology readiness level
(TRL) ratings, the R&D scales up in cost and becomes a possible
application when ratings approach 4 or 5 on a 1 to 9 scale. At this
point, scientific interest may wane, as the product is perceived as
ready, with most technical difficulties resolved. At the same time, the
customer perspective is to view the product as still immature, with cost
and broad system level issues un-addressed. The result can be inadequate
pass-off of basic R&D or inadequate maturation should the technology be
pushed into operations prematurely.

Technology infusion into the commercial sector is greatly assisted when
infrastructure development is used to push beyond basic R&D and toward
challenging applications. National Range, or any Spaceport investments
which apply basic R&D, will modernize at the same time as they innovate.
Innovations must address the specific needs of the space transportation
sector. Alternately, commercial products must also be applied to
specific Spaceport needs to mature the system level understanding of how
advanced commercial technology can be applied at Spaceports. Successful
technology infusion through such a dual strategy (R&D as well as
commercial products applied to specific Spaceport infrastructure
improvements) can provide dramatic results toward creating Spaceports
that encourage the growth of the space transportations sector.

Without increased[^2] investments in both R&D and Spaceport
infrastructure development the current state of stagnation in the space
transportation industry will continue. Capital flow into the sector is
an appropriate role for state and federal agencies as with any
transportation infrastructure. Private sector capital can be encouraged
or dissuaded to the degree that commitment by state or federal agencies
is shown through investment as well as a policy and enabling regulatory
framework.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 2. Investment in a modernized National Spaceport
  infrastructure in the areas of information systems, sensing and
  instrumentation, and command and control systems is required as a near
  term step.** This will accrue benefits in evolving reduced labor and
  increased flight rate capabilities. An overlap of these areas into
  range, payloads, servicing systems, and all the direct and indirect
  functions within a Spaceport is inevitable and desirable.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-cutting, basic investments in modernization can serve multiple
customers within a focus on affordable, supportable, flexible,
inter-operable, standardized systems approaches in the information
arena. Broad investment in these areas that does not cater toward
specific systems (but can accommodate existing requirements) is more
likely to yield broad benefits to the space transportation business
while avoiding issues such as anti-competitive practices.

Investments in current Spaceport infrastructure basic R&D is negligible.
Investments in modernization efforts, such as the DoD Range
Modernization effort (RSA) or Kennedy Space Center's Checkout and Launch
Control System (CLCS), approach hundreds and tens of millions of dollars
annually. In each case, modernization is upgrading antiquated systems to
more up to date hardware and software. Such investments are relatively
high in a fiscal reality that constrains Federal discretionary spending.
But, for comparison, airports routinely add gates in redevelopment
projects at costs as high as Millions to tens of Millions of dollars per
gate[^3]. This is for well know business operations accommodating and
duplicating the same operations as thousands of other Airports
worldwide. It is not reasonable to expect that Spaceport infrastructure
can invent an entirely new generation of technology and infrastructure,
and acquire it, for reaching multiple flights per day (out of possibly
multiple "gates" or sites) for only a fraction of these costs. Long-term
investments are required in basic R&D as well as Spaceport technology
development or longer-term goals of reduced operational costs and
multiple flights per day will not be achieved.

As modernization efforts in one area decline, other areas await in line
to be bought from technology and processes of the 60's and 70's into the
modern systems possible today. Ongoing efforts at modernization cannot
be seen as having end-points, but rather as offering opportunities for
re-investment once one area has been upgraded.

Additionally, capital influx for operations, albeit high for all parts
of the National space transportation infrastructure, should not be
confused with capital outlays for new, improved infrastructure, or for
maturing the development of dramatically different kinds of
architectures and systems. It is the later that will be required focused
on the development of capabilities and the kind of economic
opportunities and growth as outlined in this report. Space Solar Power
is only one of innumerable possibilities on the space frontier which can
be enabled by Spaceports, flights per day, and \~\$100 per pound costs.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 3. Implement effective cost accounting, information,
  work control and tracking systems within the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.
  These systems should be pervasive, useful and fully a part of the
  systems being operated today on the National Ranges.** Such systems do
  not exist and greatly hamper any quantitative understanding of decades
  worth of operations experience in these systems. It is recommended that
  the system approach used by the Air Transport Association (ATA) serve
  as a starting point for study into the implementation of these work and
  cost accounting systems. Shuttle, as the world's only semi-reusable
  launch system offers a particularly valuable, yet un-developed,
  knowledgebase resource applicable to future reusable launch vehicle
  development (RLV's).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Budgetary information has been relied on in many a cost analysis of
space transportation systems such as Shuttle. Reliability,
maintainability and logistical type data has also been studied and used
in cost and operations assessments for expendable, Shuttle and future
systems. Such information is inadequate to the task of supporting costly
decisions on needed improvements in space transportation. Cost
information systems for space transportation are generally a generation
or more behind their equivalent counterparts in the aircraft and airport
sectors. This lag has no technical excuse and is solely the result of
lack of investment in such systems.

It is testament to near term thinking that cripples far term knowledge,
that modern, useful, data tracking and work management systems have only
been sparsely implemented in operational space transportation systems.
An unusual obliviousness to understanding costs, drivers and
productivity impacts of launch technology is a heritage of systems and
organizations created within a cold-war context. Shop floor control
systems integrating processes with modern mobile hardware, database,
tracking and information management techniques can provide indispensable
information supporting decisions in R&D direction and needed
investments.

Operations research in space transportation / spaceport processes can
become a more quantifiable science by developing effective cost
accounting and work management systems. This information, made publicly
available, can assist in the development of business planning by private
sector customers and stakeholders. This will reduce the risk to enter
the space business in the areas of cost, schedule or the recurring
operations costs and flight rate capabilities of ground and flight
systems.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 4. NASA and the private sector must continue to
  develop, understand and mature customer requirements and opportunities,
  only one example of which is Space Solar Power, leading to the
  maturation and stimulation of demand that will take advantage of
  increased Spaceport capabilities.** R&D from these endless, as yet
  unexplored sectors, acting as commercial "pull" can complement
  technology push in the areas of space transportation and spaceport
  development by offering vistas to opportunities that may otherwise not
  be fully understood as to their benefits.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Space Solar Power is only one of many possibilities that will become
viable if affordable, daily, routine space transportation is available.
This opportunity also requires advances in deployable structures, solar
arrays, power generation, and wireless power transmission. This
complement of technology pull (R&D centered on opportunities) and
technology push (centered on enabling infrastructure) can be a valuable
strategy toward advancing the opening of the space frontier.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 5. Initiate a payloads customer and stakeholder
  initiative as a public and private partnership that addresses
  standardization, automation of test and checkout, carriers and
  containers for flight systems.** Such an effort should broadly involve
  NASA, satellite manufacturers, the scientific community, Shuttle and
  expendable organizations in the public and private sectors. Future
  space transportations systems developers must also play a role. Such an
  effort should be long term in nature, seeking to grow avenues for
  technology, approaches and commercialization leading to simple, generic
  and higher through-put, Spaceport payload and cargo operations.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The nature of payload operations in today's Spaceport environment cannot
be ignored either in the flight system or the ground infrastructure.
Costly serial time operations, labor intensive test, checkout, handling,
and integration onto vehicles is a major contributing factor to low
productivity flight rates and high processing costs for vehicles. The
cottage industry approach that treats each payload as a unique set of
requirements that are catered to offers many opportunities for dramatic
improvement.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 6. Government and industry must evolve common support
  architectures compatible with a maximum or growing number of
  spaceports.** There are currently no institutionalized support
  mechanisms within government agencies, NASA or the Federal Aviation
  Administration, that support the growth and development of Nation-wide
  spaceport capabilities. Licensing and certification authorities such as
  the FAA only begin to address this much broader issue of space
  capability evolving toward the type of infrastructure support that
  airports enjoy.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Encouraging the growth of space transportation through technology
development has been partly addressed in previous studies[^4]. This
addresses the issue of developing capabilities for use by Spaceports
Nation-wide. NASA, developing a technology, approach or standard that
comes into use at a National range, must also provide technology
infusion mechanisms for the use of these by others in public and/or
private Spaceport developments elsewhere. Eastern and Western Range
organizations must function as guiding entities that encourage
competitors if the industry as a whole is to grow more quickly toward
independent, private, highly productive Spaceports.

This particular area requires caution so as not to pre-maturely
standardize around government requirements that can be incompatible with
commercial needs. Basic technology development that is diffuse and
serves many customers and stakeholders avoids this pitfall. More
specific infrastructure development and standardization needs to be
responsive to open-ended, easily upgraded approaches that can keep pace
with rapid changes in private sector needs.

> **Spaceport Technology Center**
>
> Kennedy Space Center's Spaceport Technology Center (STC) initiative is
> designed to align and enhance existing KSC technology development
> product lines with the needs of future reusable and expendable space
> transportation systems. The Spaceport Technology Center initiative is
> an evolving component of KSC\'s Center of Excellence in Launch and
> Payload Processing Systems.
>
> KSC\'s core business statement is to \"Provide space systems
> processes, test, and launch techniques and develop associated
> technologies.\" As an active spaceport, KSC technology development
> activities encompass a wide range of technology readiness levels
> (TRL\'s). KSC has product lines for \"spaceport design and systems
> development\" which start with testing and integrating technologies at
> the mid-TRL ranges in order to build and deploy an operational
> spaceport system. KSC has also established unique development
> capabilities (personnel and laboratory / testbed facilities) for
> collaborative technology development efforts in several technology
> thrust areas.
>
> Historically, the majority of the total life cycle cost for any
> complex system is attributed to operational and support activities.
> Therefore, a primary strategy for reducing life cycle costs should be
> to develop and infuse spaceport technologies in future space
> transportation systems. KSC\'s complementary advanced spaceport
> technologies will benefit current and future spaceports on the earth,
> moon, Mars, and beyond.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 7. Policy and regulatory frameworks must encourage
  capital availability.** While it is an appropriate and necessary role
  of government agencies to perform R&D and technology development, the
  actual acquisition of Spaceport capabilities by the private sector
  should eventually grow well beyond public capability. This will hinge
  on capital being readily available as with other similar infrastructure
  developments such as airports. This will encourage investment by
  states, private corporations, independent authorities or combinations
  of these.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Capital availability can be furthered through reduction in risk, as
captured previously, when proper levels of investment occur in
technology development, infrastructure commitment and support systems
for developing Spaceports. Further capital availability can be enabled
by the treatment of Spaceport developments in a manner similar to
airports, as addressed in the recent Spaceport Investment Act. This
would treat spaceports like airports under the exempt facility bond
rules.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **RECOMMENDATION 8. It is recommended that necessary next steps that
  may be performed by government and industry partnerships include a more
  detailed identification of impediments to the Spaceport improvements
  required.** Further, such a process should identify candidate solutions
  in greater detail, group the technology candidates, evaluate the
  technology groups for funding profiles, and assure customer and
  stakeholder requirements are flowed down to the research community.
  Work that can be performed in pre-competitive phases as government /
  industry partnerships should especially be identified.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Impediments to technology initiatives may be organizational,
informational, or technical, among others. Technological impediments may
include the reliability (or lack thereof) of flight systems. Lack of
reliability in flight systems is a significant contributor to lengthy,
labor intensive, turnaround cycle times. Additionally, vehicle
complexity due to lack of sub-systems integration, results in extensive
ground systems. Informational impediments include poor accounting, work
control and management systems, and piecemeal implementations of IT that
institutionalize system sub-optimization. A full accounting of such
impediments in greater detail is required. Following such an activity a
gathering of specific improvement proposals complete with budget
profiles connected to objectives should be immediately developed. This
more detailed technology "push" assessment should be a complement to the
technology "pull" emphasis included here. Tools, software and techniques
for management visibility and more rapid assessment of current holdings,
progress toward goals, and decision-making support for future holdings,
in such a portfolio approach, should be a major area addressed in this
next step.

# Introduction

## Space Solar Power and Future Enterprises

From 1995 through 2000, NASA has conducted a re-examination of the
concept of Space Solar Power (SSP). The principal objective of this
fresh look study was to:

> "...determine whether a solar power satellite and associated systems
> could be defined that could deliver energy into terrestrial electrical
> power grids at prices equal to or below ground alternatives in a
> variety of markets, do so without major environmental drawbacks, and
> which could be developed at a fraction of the initial investment
> projected for the reference System of the late 1970s."[^5]

Such a system is envisioned in Figure 1.0 (the Suntower). The
requirement that the new concept have a "fraction of the initial
investment" of the 1970's reference SSP system is recognition of the
significance that Earth-to-Orbit (ETO) transportation costs have on the
overall economics of SSP. That is, transportation costs (ETO and
in-space transfer vehicles) are a major contributor to the overall life
cycle cost of SSP.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.097916666666667in"
height="2.6013888888888888in"}

*Figure 1.0 Space Solar Power (SSP) Suntower and Earth-to-Orbit (ETO)
Vehicle.*

While it is easy to identify the location of Spaceports worldwide and
the capabilities of each of these, a more difficult task lies in
defining what future improvements in those capabilities are required?
What Spaceport factors need to be addressed and most improved upon to
enable SSP and multitudes of other such opportunities? What is required
to stimulate and complement increases in flight rate and reductions in
cost of space transportation systems?

This report recommends key spaceport technology investments needed to
significantly lower space access costs. The report is based on a
technology investment "roadmap" that draws the path from where we are
today to achieving the required advances in spaceport technology and
infrastructure.

Within this context, SSP is just one of multitudes of possible business
opportunities should access to space become routine, on the order of one
or more flights per day out of any one Spaceport, and low cost, on the
order of \~\$100 per pound for transportation costs.

The results documented here are therefore:

-   Generic: Applicable to any far term enterprises that will not be
    viable until such low cost routine access to space is available.

-   Near term: Describing the necessary investment steps that connect to
    ambitious far term goals.

-   Not location specific, such as to Florida or the Kennedy Space
    Center (KSC): Spaceport and space transportation maturation must
    necessarily evolve the technological capability to operate much as
    airports do today (inland). This means improvements in reliability
    and safety will apply to any technological approach.

## The Vision Spaceport Partnership

The Vision Spaceport Partnership[^6] is a Kennedy Space Center /
Industry initiative sponsored as a Joint Sponsored Research Agreement
(JSRA). The function of this partnership is to provide a strategic
foundation for enabling revolutionary advances in space launch
architectures. Focusing and using the knowledge and launch experience of
government, industry and academia in a collaborative environment enables
this strategic foundation.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.352083333333334in"
height="3.033333333333333in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.764583333333333in"
height="0.4638888888888889in"}

*Figure 2.0 The Vision Spaceport Partnership -- The vision foresees high
flight rate capabilities enabled by innovative, cost effective, vehicle
and spaceport systems designs that minimize operations requirements
(Image © Vision Spaceport Partnership).*

# Spaceports

## Spaceport Functions and Attributes for Improvement

What is a Spaceport?

The Vision Spaceport partnership uses the term "spaceport" to refer to
the facilities, equipment, personnel, and vicinity required to prepare
space-bound craft for flight, initiate and manage the flight, and
receive the craft at the end of the flight. For earth-based spaceports,
"vicinity" refers to the land (or sea) occupied by the facilities and
equipment. For space-based spaceports, "vicinity" refers to the orbit
and operations envelope of the space-based facilities. Unlike most
airports, a spaceport is typically dispersed over several locations
including "downrange" instrumentation facilities, abort landing sites,
and space-based communications assets. Multiple spaceports may share
certain resources.

Spaceport functions[^7] are listed in Table 1.0. A particular Spaceport
may or may not include all these functions depending on the customers
and types of systems served. In the broadest sense, however, a future
Spaceport and any Spaceport planning for growth must consider all these
functions for applicability and improvement.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Spaceport function

  Payload and Cargo Processing

  Traffic and Flight Control

  Launch

  Landing and Recovery

  Vehicle Turnaround

  Vehicle Assembly and/or Integration

  Vehicle Depot Maintenance

  Spaceport Support Infrastructure

  Concept Unique Logistics

  Transportation Systems Operations Planning and Management

  Expendable Elements

  Community Infrastructure
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Table 1.0 Spaceport functional breakdown structure for comprehensively
defining, accounting for, and understanding Spaceport functions.*

To improve on these functions a Spaceport may be viewed from a series of
perspectives. The potential benefits of contemplated improvements can be
measured by multiple attributes that encompass the non-recurring and the
recurring aspects of interest for a Spaceport. Key spaceport attributes
are shown in Table 2.0.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **non-recurring**                               **recurring**

  **Research, Development **Definition and        **Operational - improve
  and Maturation -        Acquisition - improve   on:**
  improve on:**           on:**                   

  Cost (to Develop)       Cost (to Acquire)       Cost Burden /
                                                  Affordable

  Benefit Focus           Schedule                Dependable

  Schedule                Risk                    Environmentally
                                                  Compatible

  Risk                    Support, Local and      Public Support
                          Beyond                  

  Dual Use                                        Safe

                                                  Responsive / Available
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

*Table 2.0 Qualitative attributes of a Spaceport ("what", not "how")
that must be addressed in considering improvement and investment needs.*

# Spaceport Technology Portfolio Development

## Roadmap Development Process

The Vision Spaceport Partnership derived key aspects of certain
spaceport technologies that could lead to development and deployment of
those technologies with greatest benefit potential. The resulting
collection of technologies and analysis make up the Spaceport technology
portfolio and roadmap. This process may also be referred to as a
technology assessment process that derives aspects of technology
("what") that lead to particular technologies as paths ("how").

This process of developing a Spaceport concept and technology roadmap
has included the following basic ground rules:

-   **Start with the objective** -- high flight rates, low costs,
    responsiveness to new customers and stakeholders.

-   **Use structured, traceable processes** -- avoid creating lists of
    concepts and technologies before defining and fully understanding
    needs and requirements.

-   **Be generic** -- define the needs and possible options. It is not
    the objective to define where geographically such capabilities will
    eventually evolve. Spaceport maturation will measure its success by
    independent and self sustained growth, no longer limited to a
    handful of national ranges.

-   **Segment into near, mid and far-term concept and technology
    maturation timeframes** -- long-term objectives are often easily
    defined and just as easily ignored as inapplicable to today's
    challenges. Near, mid and far term connections and plans for
    investment directions are required.

-   **Provide insight into investment processes** -- providing insights
    that offer a sense of direction is crucial given the difficulties of
    connecting costs incurred today to benefits accrued down the road.

## Goal

It is the goal of any investment portfolio to provide growth in the
value of assets. The development of a Spaceport concept and technology
roadmap is very similar to the development of an investment portfolio of
financial securities.

The goal of increasing the value of an investment portfolio, in the
context of a Spaceport, has been analyzed from various points of view.
As described in Table 2.0, a Spaceport technology may be in a research,
development and maturation phase, it may be in definition and
acquisition, it may be operational, or it may involve all three aspects.

To best view these variables the analysis in this report:

-   Separates cost from benefit (Figure 3.0).

    -   The factors embodied in research, development and maturation,
        and the factors in definition and acquisition, are all costs in
        a sense. They are up-front, non-recurring expenses and represent
        barriers or opportunities toward activating and operating an
        enterprise such as a Spaceport. These non-recurring factors
        include consideration of the benefit, of schedule, as in time to
        develop or acquire, of the risk, as in being able to succeed at
        all within expectations, of other uses and of support, public
        and private. The benefit is downstream, recurring, and where the
        choices made up-front create consequences. These operational
        factors include how affordable is a system or how dependable?
        How safe is it or how environmentally compatible?

-   Uses the concept of "technology pull" rather than "technology push".

    -   "Technology pull" originates with the customer that has a
        development need or requirements. "Pull" begins with the
        assumption that it is best to understand, define a problem and
        form the right questions, before proceeding to address the
        merits of differing solutions. The Spaceport roadmap defined
        with "pull" is a combination of a set of "hows" as technology
        recommendations and "hows" which are concepts. Concepts define
        the framework and sense of direction which are critical to
        problem solving and improvement.

    -   "Technology push" originates with a developer and attempts to
        improve or create technology in any product area. "Push" is
        essential to the nature of research and development (R&D) where
        the exploration of any area does not always have or need a
        well-defined customer set of requirements.

The portfolio assets defined with an emphasis on "technology pull" have
the greatest likelihood of growth in value. Growth in value is defined
as the ability to accrue benefits in the long term, such as when
operational, that far outweigh the up-front costs (including time and
risk among other factors).

![](media/image6.wmf){width="4.6409722222222225in"
height="3.076388888888889in"}

*Figure 3.0 A graphical view of cost versus benefit. Such analysis using
well defined attributes of a Spaceport and measurable criteria for a
Spaceport lends insight into areas for investment.*

## Customers and Stakeholders

Any analysis of concepts and technologies in support and justification
of investments must include a thorough understanding of customers and
stakeholders. These may be existing or potential, as in future markets.
The Space Solar Power customer / stakeholders are one example of a
potential customer / stakeholder many years hence.

The term "stakeholder" broadens the notion of customer.

-   Customers and stakeholders: Who is affected by the creation and
    successful operation of a Spaceport?

Figure 4.0 broadly describes Spaceport customers and stakeholders. All
these organizations will have different roles and primary goals.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.711805555555555in"
height="3.546527777777778in"}

*Figure 4.0 Spaceport customers and stakeholders. The introduction of
stakeholders into the development of a Spaceport portfolio forces the
consideration of investment factors such as environmental compatibility,
regulatory issues, or public support.*

The Vision Spaceport Partnership, by including government (NASA, plus
the Federal Aviation Administration), large industry (major contractors
Lockheed-Martin and Boeing), and small companies active in the space
transportation business (Command and Control Technologies Corp., Barker
Ramos Associates) brings a diverse expertise to the development of a
Spaceport portfolio. This expertise includes an awareness of customer
and stakeholder priorities and perspectives.

Further, as part of this report, "perspective sessions" were held with
customers / stakeholders that bring relevant perspectives to the
business of space transportation (Table 3.0).

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  COMPANY / NAME                      Area

  Government Financial Advisors       Financier / Investment
  Group - Tom Holley                  

  Brevard Economic Development        State Economic Authority
  Commission - Lynda Weatherman       

  Kelly Space and Technology - Bob    Potential Space Transportation
  Keltner                             Operator

  Spaceport Utah Authority - Steve    Private Airport / Spaceport
  Collins                             Developer

  Computer Sciences Raytheon -        Spaceport Facilities / Technical
  Michael Maier                       Management

  Lunar Research Institute - Dr. Alan Scientific Non-Profit Research
  Binder                              Institute and Engineering
                                      Spacecraft Development and Design

  Space Law and Policy Interest -     Legal / Law of Space
  Declan O'Connell                    
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

*Table 3.0 A Spaceports customers / stakeholder's definition goes beyond
the notions of operators of a vehicle or payload interests. As a part of
"perspective sessions" feeding into this Spaceport portfolio development
the Vision Spaceport Partnership has complemented team experience with
diverse other perspectives.*

## Performance Requirements

Spaceport performance requirements for the far term (15+ years) amount
to:

-   On the order of only tens of dollars per kilogram of payload
    delivered to Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO).

-   Launch rates on the order of multiple flights per day per system
    (Spaceport and vehicle).

From a target of \~\$400/kg (price)[^8] for a space transportation
system that creates open-ended market growth, it can be derived that the
infrastructure (cost) component of this market goal reduces to a mere
\$75/kg.

This spaceport infrastructure component of cost includes:

-   Non-recurring acquisition of Spaceport Facilities and ground support
    equipment (GSE).

-   Recurring operational costs including labor and materials.

-   Recurring financial costs amortizing up-front activation and
    acquisition of the infrastructure.

Current costs for the same items today are on the order of tens of
thousands of dollars per kilogram (Shuttle operations currently have
recurring expenditures of \~\$7000 per pound). The challenge, and the
subject of this report, lies in identifying the investment steps that
will enable these goals for the least amount of expenditure in near term
R&D and later acquisition.

## Technology Categories

The technology categories used in this analysis include:

-   Safety Management and Control Systems

-   Payload Packaging & Vehicle Integration

-   Large Scale Propellant, Fluid, Mechanical & Power Systems

-   Command & Control Systems & Information Networks

-   Systems Health Management

-   Information Systems

-   Launch Assist Systems

It is not intended that this duplicate the definition of Spaceport
functions as described previously in Table 1.0. Rather, these topics
have been chosen so as to be:

-   Defined as specific Spaceport challenges inclusive of all potential
    Spaceport concepts and technologies.

-   High -- level, affording a waterfall effect for any concepts or
    technologies that have not been included as of this report.

It is not possible to completely segregate technologies in one area from
related technologies or applications in another area. For example,
information systems technology is growing so fast that overlaps into the
areas of command and control or systems health management are
inevitable.

The prior areas have all been further defined in a series of white
papers (Table 4.0) describing the technology challenges that lie ahead.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.678472222222222in"
height="3.7527777777777778in"}

*Table 4.0 Spaceport Concept & Technology Area and the Corresponding
White Paper on the Spaceport Technology Challenge. White papers
available at:*
<http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Task8/SpaceportTeamReports/WhitePapers/>

Eight areas have been identified. Some of these areas naturally overlap
into others. Complete white papers[^9] have been prepared to clarify
these areas and the required improvements in detail.

1.  **Range Systems**: This area has been defined in relation to the
    vast network of manual activities to plan missions, schedule
    launches, configure instrumentation, preserve safety and support
    mission analysis. Current range functions include:

    -   Mission Planning, Scheduling, Flight Tracking, Flight
        Monitoring, Flight Safety, Range Surveillance, Weather
        Monitoring and Prediction, Telemetry and Communications,
        Emergency Response, Mission Analysis.

> [White Paper: 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ Generation Range and Space Traffic
> Management Concepts and Technologies.]{.underline}

2.  **Traffic Management Systems**: Based on the anticipated evolution
    of the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) an integrated aviation /
    aerospace infrastructure will be required to accommodate dramatic
    growth. This will include addressing:

    -   Communications, Navigation, Surveillance, Displays and Flight /
        Mission Management.

> [White Paper: 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ Generation Spaceport Air & Space Traffic
> Control & Management System.]{.underline}

3.  **Payloads**: Payload and cargo ground processes include everything
    from test and checkout, the operation of clean-room and processing
    facilities and equipment, to the complex tasks of servicing,
    integrating, handling and installing payloads and cargo in vehicles.
    This area includes:

    -   Payload carriers, payload containers, test and checkout,
        umbilicals and interfaces, handling and the processing of
        analytical data.

> [White Paper: Payload Packaging and Vehicle Integration for Flights
> per Day and Dollars per Pound.]{.underline}

4.  **Propellants**: The servicing of a space transportation system
    requires infrastructure on scales that contribute enormously to high
    costs and low flight rates. The operations and maintenance of this
    infrastructure, it's complexity, and the hazards involved all
    require significant investment if space transportation as a whole is
    to progress. This area includes:

    -   Energy, gas and liquid commodities, and facility and equipment
        infrastructure required to test, checkout, service (load
        propellants), and launch a space transportation system.

> [White Paper: Integrated Propellant Production Technologies via Co-and
> Poly Generation of Multiple Commodities Including Cryogens and
> Electrical Power.]{.underline}

5.  **Command and Control**: This area addresses approaches that
    integrate multiple technologies that must work in unison in order to
    create future command, control, and spaceport services that are
    affordable, flexible, responsive, interoperable, and easily
    reconfigured, modified and upgraded. This includes:

    -   In-line functions such as automation and control of turnaround,
        servicing and launch operations; off-line functions such as
        planning, scheduling, diagnostics and maintenance and logistics.

> [White Paper: 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ Generation Spaceport Integrated Command
> and Control Concepts and Technologies.]{.underline}

6.  **Sensors and Instrumentation**: This area includes component and
    system level technology for the acquisition of data and the
    monitoring of essential functions at a Spaceport.

> [White Paper: Sensors and Instrumentation Technology Challenges for
> 3^rd^ Generation Spaceports.]{.underline}

7.  **Information Systems**: This area includes a host of functions that
    cross into every other function at a Spaceport. Key areas here
    include: Automated Planning, Scheduling and Modeling, Learning,
    Reasoning and Decision Making, Data Mining and Visualization,
    Improved Human Machine Interfaces, Distributed/Collaborative Design
    and Control, Rapid, Reliable Software Engineering Processes, Methods
    and Tools, Procedure Generation, Tracking, Logistics and Work
    Control.

> [White Paper: 2nd and 3rd Generation Spaceport Integrated Information
> Systems Technologies.]{.underline}

8.  **Launch Assist**: This area, unlike the previous, is specific to a
    vehicle concept. The idea of using a ground assist technique to add
    margin to a space transportation vehicle is not new. The
    technologies have advanced in many areas in recent years requiring
    an assessment of this investment in relation to other areas.

> [White Paper: Spaceport Universal Ground Launch Assist.]{.underline}

# Challenges

Spaceport development for the foreseeable future will remain a capital
driven, infrastructure intensive endeavor. As in any industry, heavy
infrastructure goes un-noticed the most when beneficiaries or users of a
system are impacted on a marginal basis. Examples here include the
Internet, the national highway system, railroads, or the national
airport and airways infrastructures. As such, affordability only begins
to address the Spaceport infrastructure and technology gap --
productivity of that infrastructure must also be addressed. Productivity
may be measured in flights per day, or in tonnage per year to a certain
orbit from that Spaceport.

## Affordability

A semi-reusable space transportation system such as Shuttle is
un-affordable at \~\$6000 per pound[^10] for most enterprises other than
government / scientific programs. This cost does not include recovering
the non-recurring funds for massive amounts of infrastructure required
by Shuttle operations through first launch, as well as continuing unique
investments since 1981. Marginal (actual next flight additional costs
after the first few flights per year) are \~\$95M per flight[^11],
sharply reducing the per pound costs depending on the payload weight.

Expendable systems, American or European, have prices reflecting costs
in the range of a few thousand dollars per pound. Other systems (Russia,
China) are in the same range albeit with some accounting complications
generally making detailed comparisons of launcher costs matters of
continuous debate. Costs to go beyond LEO to Geosynchronous transfer
orbit can double the costs incurred. Without debate, no systems today
provide services that are affordable and encouraging for the future
growth of the space transportation industry.

> \"Another unknown is the true size of each market. Nearly every new
> player is trying to win the front-end business of producing satellites
> and rockets and providing launch services. That market alone is valued
> at a total of \$31 billion or more through 2005, according to
> estimates by Euroconsult in Paris and U.S. industry. But to strike the
> motherlode, each entrant must also try to secure a share of the \$130
> billion they expect to flow from delivering all those voices and
> pictures to consumers and commercial buyers over that period.\" -Wall
> Street Journal, October 10, 1995
>
> Consider that if the business of delivering bits and bytes is 4X the
> magnitude of the transportation and satellite side of the
> equation[^12]^,^[^13] -- what is the benefit should the business of
> space grow dramatically? For this to happen affordability must
> increase (reduced cost) but not at the cost of decreased revenue.
> Revenue must also increase. This points to the need for greater
> Spacelift capability -- flights per day, not flights per month. Flight
> rate is the bottleneck. A current investment requirement of \$100M in
> communication, information or command control infrastructure may not
> decline in real dollars over time. The more relevant question is can
> that same investment result in ever increasing flight rate capability
> over time?

## Spacelift Capability

Spacelift capability globally has been relatively static in the past 10
years (Figure 5.0). Many explanations may be offered for declining
spacelift trends as measured by one metric (tonnage per year) that would
be used in any other transportation industry such as airlines or ocean
going shipping. Among these reasons is the decline in government
expenditures in space. Nonetheless the commercial sector also shows
stagnation or decline, and the trend for this metric is downward not
just domestically but globally. It is clear that dramatically new
approaches are required to the design, technology and systems that have
served global spacelift to date if space is to be accessible, routine,
and affordable - sooner rather than later.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.455555555555556in"
height="2.5590277777777777in"}

*Figure 5.0 Global spacelift trends -- this analysis*[^14] *showing a
stagnant picture of launch capability is also confirmed by other
studies. The recent report on the "Future Management and Use of the U.S.
Space Launch Bases and Ranges*[^15]*" indicated a marginally increased
launch rate from Eastern and Western U.S. ranges in 1998. More
significantly, the broader picture is still one of stagnation, with
about 100 to 150 launches per year globally for the foreseeable future.
Volatility in the industry capability is common. Western Range forecasts
of 30 launches per year and Eastern Range forecasts of about 40 launches
per year, for the next 8 years, are in no way encouraging of growth in
the industry.*

## Safety

Safety as a primary goal may be considered the "better" in any attempt
to create systems that are also more affordable and more responsive. For
Spaceports, safety has a unique connotation as range safety, the need to
insure launches do not create hazards for people and property on and off
the range. Spaceport safety also goes far beyond this into environmental
issues, vehicle designs and technologies that may or may not eliminate
hazards. This analysis has considered Safety from all these perspectives
-- ground, flight and throughout the processes employed at a Spaceport,
not merely during flight time.

# Insight into Spaceport Investment Opportunities

The analysis of this report has used structured, traceable processes
such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD), in complement with technical
surveys written as white papers (Table 4.0 previous).

The technology assessment process, in summary:

1.  Defines customers and stakeholders.

2.  Defines the subject, Spaceports, in detail, functionally, and as
    attributes (Table 2.0, e.g. cost, benefit, risk, etc) to improve.

3.  Defines performance requirements, in detail, within a functional
    breakdown structure for the Spaceport.

4.  Prioritizes the areas to improve (the prior attributes); further
    measurable criteria are derived and also prioritized for
    understanding the benefits desired (improved operations, safety,
    etc).

5.  Defines the "technology pull" concepts and technologies as white
    papers describing paths to improvements and the challenges that lie
    ahead in a way that is responsive to criteria.

6.  Assesses the "technology pull" concepts and technologies against the
    criteria in a methodical process that lends insight into costs
    versus benefit (Figure 3.0).

As part of this analysis, the variables of cost, risk, safety, etc can
be altered to give insight into scenarios where one variable would be
highly prized over another. For example, what would priorities be for
Spaceport investment if cost were absolutely paramount? Or safety was
paramount to the exclusion of all other factors? The processes used here
permit this insight.

## Assessment Factors

### Research and Development

Factors considered in the assessment of Spaceport R&D are numerous
(Table 5.0). Most such factors are generic and could apply to space
transportation in general.

**[R&D ASSESSMENT FACTORS]{.mark}**

![](media/image10.wmf){width="3.734722222222222in"
height="2.779861111111111in"}

*Table 5.0 R&D factors for assessing Spaceport up-front investments and
gaining insight into the non-recurring merits and/or impacts of a
concept, technology or investment path.*

For usefulness, these factors were prioritized (Figure 6.0) to permit
later assessment of particular investment choices. These priorities are
not in any way intended as optimal, so much as they are a useful
starting point in a process that can weigh decision making variables in
infinite combinations. Insight is gained from the consideration of these
variables and of changes to these variables.

![](media/image11.wmf){width="4.4222222222222225in" height="3.35625in"}

*Figure 6.0 One prioritization of R&D factors to permit assessment of
particular investment choices.*

### Acquisition

Factors considered in the assessment of acquiring a Spaceport capability
are numerous (Table 6.0). Most such factors are generic and could apply
to space transportation in general.

**[ACQUISITION ASSESSMENT FACTORS]{.mark}**

![](media/image12.wmf){width="4.301388888888889in"
height="2.979861111111111in"}

*Table 6.0 Definition and Acquisition factors for assessing Spaceport
up-front investments and gaining insight into the non-recurring merits
and/or impacts of a concept, technology or investment path.*

For usefulness, these factors were prioritized (Figure 7.0) to permit
later assessment of particular investment choices. These priorities are
not in any way intended as optimal, so much as they are a useful
starting point in a process that can weigh decision making variables in
infinite combinations. Insight is gained from the consideration of these
variables and of changes to these variables.

![](media/image13.wmf){width="4.567361111111111in"
height="3.441666666666667in"}

*Figure 7.0 One prioritization of Definition and Acquisition factors to
permit assessment of particular investment choices.*

### Operations

Factors considered in the assessment of a Spaceports operation are
numerous (Table 7.0). Most such factors are generic and could apply to
space transportation in general.

**[OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT FACTORS]{.mark}**

![](media/image14.wmf){width="3.948611111111111in"
height="3.042361111111111in"}

*Table 7.0 Benefit factors -- operations - for assessing Spaceport
up-front investments and gaining insight into the eventual and desired
recurring merits and/or impacts of a concept, technology or investment
path.*

![](media/image15.wmf){width="4.652083333333334in"
height="3.5055555555555555in"}

*Figure 8.0 One prioritization of Benefit -- operations - factors to
permit assessment of particular investment choices.*

For usefulness, these factors were prioritized (Figure 8.0) to permit
later assessment of particular investment choices. These priorities are
not in any way intended as optimal, so much as they are a useful
starting point in a process that can weigh decision making variables in
infinite combinations. Insight is gained from the consideration of these
variables and of changes to these variables.

Further, for added depth, measurable criteria were derived related to
these factors. These were also prioritized and used in the assessment
process.

## Approach

The analysis process relies on a cost vs. benefit assessment using the
previously described Spaceport attributes and criteria. For the
"technology pull" areas of Table 4.0 such an assessment can lend insight
into near term opportunities as they relate to far term goals.

The results of this type of analysis are best viewed strategically
(Figure 9.0). An infinite number of candidate concepts or technologies
can be proposed, evaluated and compared against each other. Such an
effort is likely to be unable to make easy or fair comparisons. This
more strategic approach groups areas and uses the "technology pull"
concept, the definition and prioritization of areas to improve, to
better focus results.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="5.8375in" height="4.577083333333333in"}

*Figure 9.0 Notional Example of a Cost vs. Benefit 2-Dimensional (2-D)
assessment approach.*

A concept such as "A", performing the same functions as "B", is not as
likely a candidate for investment since it is higher cost. If concept
"A" and "C" perform the same function, then "A" may be recommended over
"C" due to higher benefit, albeit at higher cost. If concepts "A", "B"
and "C" are all independent, as different investments within a given
area, then "B" and "C" are near term, with "B" especially offering good
"bang for the buck" in the near term. "A" is still required, but as a
longer-term investment. A field such as "D" could represent groups of
technologies where better investments at lower cost need to be
identified.

## Analysis and Findings

Figures 10.0 and 11.0 show the Spaceport technology categories outlined
previously as assessed against the factors for R&D, acquisition (both
non-recurring impacts) and benefit (a recurring consequence).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  No one isolated area has been identified as being able to singly
  improve the affordability or productivity of Spaceports and Space
  Transportation today toward the goals of such enterprises as Space
  Solar Power. Only across the board space transportation /spaceport
  investments, responsive to R&D, acquisition and operational benefit
  factors, can enable these demand scenarios requiring flights per day at
  \~\$100-\$200 per kilogram cost to LEO.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{.mark}

**FINDING 1:**

> The R&D and Acquisition factors considered tended to track each other.
> Often an R&D assessment (which may be government investment) may
> differ markedly from an acquisition assessment (which may be private
> sector business). For the Spaceport categories viewed here the areas
> needing more R&D investment also tended to need more acquisition
> investment. Lack of technology maturity toward goals combined with the
> scale of the acquisition capability consistent with goals has
> contributed to this tracking tendency in part while the inverse has
> favored other areas. Areas which are less mature and that are also
> impacted by the scale of acquisition include range, traffic and launch
> assist. Midway lies payload. More favorably, C2, information and
> sensing areas benefit from both greater maturity and later ease of
> acquiring more easily scaled systems. The only exception noted was
> that propellants systems, though favorable for the R&D factors, tended
> to be far less favorable in acquisition. This speaks to the ability to
> demonstrate advanced technology for propellants systems at lower
> costs, with less risk, but acquisition being dominated by large,
> unique, facility and equipment buys. All this is especially so within
> the unique requirements flowed into the technology "pull" areas;
> ambitious requirements of multiple flights per day from a single
> Spaceport / space transportation system with costs of \~\$100-\$200
> per kilogram delivered to LEO. Scalability within these goals becomes
> a major factor in the unique case of propellants infrastructure.

**FINDING 2:**

> Areas that take advantage of pervasive information systems advances
> generally show as having favorable R&D factors (less cost, risk, etc)
> and favorable acquisition factors. This indicates a generally positive
> situation in these areas in that command and control systems,
> information systems and sensing and instrumentation compose large
> parts of any capability at a Spaceport. This is even more favorable as
> a Spaceport reaches toward ambitious "airport" like goals of flights
> per day, multiple systems, and tonnage to LEO orders more than current
> systems. This favorable situation though, rather than indicate more
> mature systems, should also be read in light of the benefit
> assessment. Benefit factors in these last three areas were also high.
> It can be observed then that technology pull in these areas,
> responsive to areas to improve, offers a valuable, viable opportunity
> for near term and significant benefits.

**FINDING 3:**

> Payload, range, traffic and propellant system investments as defined
> previously have a potential for significant benefit. Further candidate
> definition in relation to the Operations Assessment Factors (Table
> 7.0) should be pursued to refine concepts and technologies in these
> areas. Range and traffic management investments as outlined previously
> appear to offer significant benefit albeit at higher R&D, acquisition
> expense and time (further to the left). Payload investments tend to
> sit at the dividing line or middle of this assessment. The narrower
> scope and scale of investments in this area has partly contributed to
> this, as has the approach that has been outlined in this investment
> area -- standardization of test and checkout, simplification,
> automation, carriers and containers. This area more than any other is,
> however, subject to market mechanisms and forces that are volatile and
> dispersed.

**FINDING 4:**

> The launch assist concept defined here, attempting to broaden toward a
> universal launch assist capability, resulted in a lower left quadrant
> chart position. This is to be expected given the crosscutting nature
> of the other infrastructure areas as compared to the vehicle specific
> nature of a launch assist system. The nature of the benefit in launch
> assist does, however, address vehicle mass fraction and margin issues
> best analyzed as a complete flight and ground system. This same
> observation may be made for propellants servicing systems that lagged
> to the left in acquisition. Both represent heavy, real-infrastructure
> investments that can become very vehicle concept specific. This shows
> a clear distinction between areas boosted by information technology
> (IT) advances, versus real equipment and facility driven capabilities.
> The development and proving of technology and affordability for
> propellant systems, to deliver every few days what is currently needed
> by a system such as Shuttle every year, is a major challenge.

![](media/image17.wmf){width="4.438888888888889in"
height="3.1486111111111112in"}

*Figure 10.0 Spaceport technology categories / white paper areas
correlated relatively against R&D factors (X-axis) and Benefit factors
(Y-axis).*

![](media/image18.wmf){width="4.419444444444444in"
height="3.0944444444444446in"}

*Figure 11.0 Spaceport technology categories / white paper areas
correlated relatively against Acquisition factors (X-axis) and Benefit
factors (Y-axis).*

## Roadmap

A top-level Spaceport concept and technology roadmap derived from the
process outlined in this report is shown in Figure 12.0.

![](media/image19.wmf){width="5.829861111111111in"
height="4.392361111111111in"}

*Figure 12.0 Spaceport Roadmap of areas requiring investment today and
in the next 25+ years. Benefits are yielded in the near, mid and far
term as measured in maturation and growth of capability enabling
ambitious economic enterprises with requirements such as multiple
flights per day out of a single spaceport and \~\$100 to \$200 cost per
kilogram delivered to LEO.*

## Opportunity Timeframes and Benefits

The time frames near, mid and far refer to the opportunity to accrue
benefits. All areas require investment in the near term to bring about
more efficient, effective National Spaceport infrastructure. Continued
investments are required to enable the more ambitious goals of a
routine, affordable space transportation system. Vehicle systems
technology advances will be a driving force. Spaceport investments in
complement with flight system advances will assure that the whole space
transportation system matures toward goals.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #### **Benefits**                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Spaceport infrastructure and operations research investments will:    |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  **Assure flight vehicle investments do not simply create new,     |
|     unknown and unsupportable ground systems impacts**. Shuttle and   |
|     expendable launch vehicle infrastructure and operations are a     |
|     result of a philosophy that has continuously resolved vehicle     |
|     technology, up-front investment, or margin shortcomings at the    |
|     expense of future operations. This has lead to the highest        |
|     possible costs at the lowest possible flight rates[^16]. Future   |
|     technology investments which advertise weight, or vehicle         |
|     performance enhancements will re-create a similar situation if    |
|     Spaceport and operations impacts, positive and negative, are not  |
|     factored into assessments or demonstrations of capability (such   |
|     as with X-vehicles). The presumption that spaceport               |
|     infrastructures or operations will be demonstrated or improved    |
|     late in an implementation is a duplication of the errors and      |
|     near-sightedness that has led to massive infrastructure, costs    |
|     and the low flight rates of today. This design philosophy and     |
|     culture must change toward a systems view of design that truly    |
|     understands and manages flight and ground systems design and      |
|     technology decisions.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Spaceport infrastructure and operations at X-vehicle levels or in |
|     support of technology demonstrators is un-representative of the   |
|     actual Spaceport or operations impacts of full scale, fully       |
|     functional flight systems. **Spaceport and operations investments |
|     will assure that a true, scalable and realistic approach to       |
|     infrastructure and operations advances is researched, developed,  |
|     and demonstrated in proper scale, situations and operational      |
|     environments.** This will allow a wide-eyed, measurable,          |
|     realistic view of advancement toward goals by technology          |
|     investments.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  **Provide metrics and data that can fully and inarguably support  |
|     cost and flight rate estimates for the development of future      |
|     space transportation.** This would be invaluable to the public    |
|     and private sector as they seek to acquire or develop systems     |
|     within reasonable assurance that technology has not been          |
|     oversold. This includes costs and schedule not being              |
|     underestimated, and crucial flight rate capability per system, or |
|     vehicle, being correctly predicted.                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

It is assumed in the areas that follow that investments are responsive
to the criteria needing most improvement. Maximizing return will depend
directly on the ability of investments in these areas to respond to:

> **In Priority Order...Spaceport Investments must Respond to:**

1.  Reducing engineering and management support requirements for
    servicing and launch systems.

2.  Increasing the maintainability and automation of facility and ground
    support equipment processes; increase the streamlining and
    automation of management and organizational processes.

3.  Increasing the overall levels of automated, remote health management
    and test and checkout at a Spaceport.

4.  Increasing the reliability of individual components, increasing the
    affordability of future systems, such as with
    commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems, and standardizing hardware
    and software interfaces.

5.  Taking maximum advantage of tremendous growth of network and
    information systems technologies.

Pro-actively, Spaceport and operations organizations must engage with
technology and future flight systems developers to communicate and
assist in:

> **Priority Order...Spaceport Pro-Actively with Flight System
> Developers:**

1.  Increase launch specific servicing systems supportability, reducing
    the numbers of different fluids, commodities, gases and electrical /
    communications requirements and accompanying interfaces.

2.  Eliminating environmental and safety hazards, eliminating hazardous
    operations, such as by eliminating the use of highly toxic
    propellants or pollutive substances in any quantities, large or
    small, on a vehicle or on payloads.

3.  Eliminating hazardous areas and operations introduced due to vehicle
    designs choices, such as by reducing vehicle purge requirements or
    hazardous compartments.

4.  Assure increases in the reliability of individual components;
    increase flights systems affordability and supportability. No
    Spaceport or operations advancement or technology can keep poor,
    un-reliable flight hardware from failing, increasing labor and
    material costs, and decreasing flight rate.

5.  Increase technology readiness levels through proper demonstration
    and understanding of whole flight and ground systems technologies.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  The " Technology Pull" candidates defined here represent (1)
  recommendations as specific technology investments and (2)
  recommendations that are intended to define a framework or sense of
  direction for improvement in any area.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

### Near-Term -- Within 5+ Years

> Investments that are most affordable today and which can also yield
> near term, high benefits include:

-   Information Systems

-   Sensors and Instrumentation

-   Command and Control Systems

Investments in these areas can quickly diffuse into solutions at a
micro-level that can collectively have little or no beneficial effect on
advancing Spaceport affordability or productivity. To avoid this,
solutions defined in these areas must be:

-   Integrated and Process Based: Implementing broad end-to-end
    understanding or organizational processes, functions and interfaces.
    Macro-level solutions that begin and end with process definition and
    improvement are required. Isolated upgrades without broad
    architectural insight into protocols, standards, inter-operability
    and long-term needs are unlikely to yield measurable benefit over
    the long term.

> Barriers to affordability and productivity that are entrenched in any
> process at a Spaceport can be driven by (1) vehicle design, (2) lack
> of vehicle technology and systems maturity (best design possible at
> the time) or (3) lack of investment enabling improved operations.
> Stringent space transportation systems requirements, extreme
> environments and lack of systems margin leave no room for error in any
> processes. The only barriers to streamlined, automated, processes
> fully taking advantage of information systems advances and the
> Internet for work and logistics control, verification, task planning,
> scheduling, document and drawing control, and hosts of other
> improvements that are required of a Spaceport are lack of investment.
>
> Investments in systems such as the Kennedy Space Center Checkout and
> Launch Control System (CLCS)[^17] are minor compared to needed
> investments. Such infrastructure investments bringing portions of a
> complex command, control infrastructure up to the standards of 1990's
> computing should not be confused with the needed investments,
> including R&D in new systems, toward reaching the more ambitious space
> transportation goals outlined here.

### Mid-Term -- Within 10+ Years

> Investments that will yield benefit over a longer time frame include
> the areas of:

-   Payloads

-   Traffic Management

-   Range

> Particularly, for Payloads:
>
> Areas specifically neglected in investments, but with high payoff
> potential, include:

-   Payload test, checkout and servicing systems, including the facility
    and ground support equipment infrastructures - Spaceport and
    operations organizations must work more closely with payload, cargo,
    and upper stage developers and stakeholders to create new, more
    standardized, automated and operationally streamlined processes.
    This includes the entire process from manifesting to receiving,
    test, checkout, servicing and integration into a vehicle.

-   Carriers and containers, with standardized interfaces between a
    payload and its carrier, and reduced or eliminated interfaces to the
    vehicle - Such direction requires new government and industry
    collaboration crosscutting companies, scientific and transportation
    organizations, future planners and new entrants into the field
    wishing to develop satellites, carriers or technology for enabling
    this.

> Particularly, for Traffic Management and Range systems infrastructure:

-   Close and continuing collaboration and research between the Federal
    Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, the Department of Defense
    (DoD), industry and academia is required.

-   National Range investments to date by the Air Force / Space Command
    that will modernize systems (advancing capabilities from circa
    1960's to circa 1980's) should not be confused with needed
    investments to reach far term goals such as multiple flights per day
    out of a single Spaceport at costs of about \$100 per pound. Range
    costs would scale, within this goal, toward amounts more in line
    with Airplane landing fees at airports. Investments here will accrue
    high benefits over the mid-term, the next 5 to 10 years.

### Far-Term -- Within 20+ Years

Investments with far-term effects and benefits, but which require
current investment include:

-   Propellants

-   Launch Assist

These later areas are heavily specific to vehicle systems design,
technology choices, and capability. Further, unlike previous investment
areas, scaling and evolving system technology in these areas in short
amounts of time, depends almost entirely on demand, flight rate, and a
customer vehicle design.

Specifically, Propellants:

-   Propellants technology must be developed with a view toward total
    servicing costs, and responsiveness, up to the flight vehicle
    interface. Current ground systems infrastructure approaches and
    technology for providing commodities such as liquid-oxygen (LOX),
    liquid-hydrogen (LH2), inert commodities, such as gaseous helium and
    nitrogen, and host of other services (such as control, monitoring,
    etc) are far removed from the systems, approaches, technology,
    reliabilities and margins of safety that will be required to enable
    servicing systems on a daily basis at fractions of current costs.
    Current systems are to tomorrows needs as far removed as the
    servicing systems of the German V-2 rocket are from today's Shuttle
    servicing systems. Generational investment is required.

-   The assumption that industry technology for energy and commodity
    production can address future infrastructure and operations needs
    should reusable vehicles be developed that can fly every day
    addresses only a small portion of the actual space transportation
    challenge at a Spaceport. This includes creating infrastructure that
    is:

    -   Generic, shared infrastructure that can service multiple flight
        systems. Architecture study into central or decentralized
        systems will be required in the mid-term. Near term investments
        should be coupled to pro-active designs between Spaceport
        operations organizations and vehicle designers.

    -   Highly integrated with other Spaceport infrastructure needs such
        as energy. De-regulation of the energy industry will create
        opportunities here that should be jointly pursued between the
        public and private sector.

Specifically, Launch Assist:

-   Continued development and study of this area is required to make the
    case for ground based launch assist systems such as those using
    Magnetic Levitation and Propulsion. This area is ripe for near term
    government investment transitioning into mid-term public and private
    partnerships as data and understanding in this area develop. The
    area is too promising not to invest in considering the potential
    benefits to vehicle design, margin and operability should new
    engines and designs evolve that can take advantage of such a system.

# Appendix A

## Roadmap Development Process

The roadmap development process that has been used in this report has
been structured and documented. In general outline Figure 13.0 captures
the sequence and inter-relationship of the steps in this process.

![](media/image20.wmf){width="5.495138888888889in"
height="4.175694444444445in"}

*Figure 13.0 Roadmap Development Process*

The roadmap development process required goals, also referred to as
performance requirements in Figure 13.0. It is possible to derive a
Spaceport contribution to the cost goals of a space transportation
system as shown in Figure 14.0, right side (red).

![](media/image21.wmf){width="5.527777777777778in"
height="4.210416666666666in"}

*Figure 14.0 Derivation of Spaceport Cost Contribution to Space
Transportation System*

[]{.mark}

Adding to this version of 1998 (Figure 14.0) from the SERT program, a
Spaceport specific version can be derived as outlined in the work of
this report. This is shown in Figure 15.0.

![](media/image22.wmf){width="5.513194444444444in"
height="4.240277777777778in"}

*Figure 15.0 Spaceport Concept and Technology Challenges, Functions, and
Goal*

For completeness, the Spaceport concepts and technologies may be viewed
along side the flight system investments as shown in Figure 16.0.

![](media/image23.wmf){width="5.5881944444444445in"
height="4.232638888888889in"}

*Figure 16.0 Earth-to-Orbit Transportation & Infrastructure Technology
Approach and Goals*

# Appendix B

## Description of Concept / Technology Improvements

**Information Systems**

Information systems in use today will not support operations required
for highly efficient spaceports with high flight rates and low costs.
Leapfrog improvements in information systems are required to increase
safety, lower recurring costs and increase flight rate. One challenge is
the automation of inter-related functional capabilities of the many
disciplines that require integration at the spaceport. Some of these
disciplines include logistics, process verification (quality control),
manifesting, scheduling of the many activities, and the safe structured
control of activities (hazardous and non-hazardous) and maintenance
support. Key information technologies that must be addressed are
described below.

1.  Automated Planning, Scheduling and Modeling

A streamlined, modern spaceport will require complex operations
involving a large number of tasks and sub-tasks, facilities, tools and
other resources. Automated planning, scheduling and modeling systems are
necessary to reduce to the huge staffs required to plan and coordinate
low-level tasks and optimize overall operations.

Planning and scheduling systems take high-level plans and commands and
break them into lower level, specific tasks. They also schedule these
tasks in time without resource conflicts. Modeling involves developing
intelligent or graphic process models that allow simulation of a process
to determine problems or optimize the process. The key challenge of
spaceport function scheduling is its sheer size and diversity. Schedules
and plans must be derived for thousands of tasks, 5-10 level
hierarchical processes, and 10's of thousands or resources. Re-planning
must be accomplished on a daily basis. Full resource conflict resolution
is also required. Advanced systems and algorithms, and extensive
computer hardware is required to perform this task in a reasonable
amount of time (\< ½ hour of compute time). Both temporal (time based)
and resource-based conflicts must be addressed.

From a long-term perspective, research is needed in the area of
integrating physical or geometric modeling information with intelligent
process planners and schedulers. Process simulation capabilities must be
able to bring in geometric world info, simulate physical motion based on
the planned process, and highlight any potential problems and
automatically replan if necessary. This approach to integration and
planning will be necessary for each of the standard payload packages and
carriers offered by a space vehicle.

**Information Systems, Continued,**

2.  Learning, Reasoning and Decision making

Decision support systems are required to make safe, consistent decisions
during process operations. This avoids costly and unsafe decisions made
by over burdened human operators. It also allows for higher speed
operations that generate large volumes of real-time data that must be
monitored for critical operational failures. The key technical challenge
in this area is to develop learning and reasoning methodologies that are
able to automatically learn from past operations and data streams, and
make rapid decisions to avoid catastrophic incidents during operations.
This includes the ability to both identify anomalies and determine
corrective courses of action. In addition to learning rules and
reasoning logic or models this technology must allow for the development
of structured knowledge data from expert operators or automated process
systems. The magnitude of this problem includes the monitoring of
hundreds of data streams and sensor values operating in the millisecond
update range.

3.  Data Mining and Visualization

Massive amounts of system and operational data are generated while
operating complex spacecraft and an associated spaceport. Because of the
complexity of future systems, advanced techniques are required to
visualize various trends and problems with operating systems. The
ability to recognize various patterns in rapidly incoming streams of
data is necessary as well. Included here is also the ability to
illustrate various states and trends occurring based on 3 or more
independent sets of data.

4.  Improved Human Machine Interfaces

The primary interface advancement required at a modern spaceport to
improve efficiency is advanced devices to view procedural data and
interact with GSE systems. For instance a technician inspecting and
servicing complex wire harnesses in a vehicle should have a wearable
device illustrating the harness and labeling of each wire to be
inspected or serviced. Voice input systems to move entire large cargo
items via cranes and platforms would avoid accidents by controlling
orientations, speeds of movement, avoiding collisions etc.

5.  Distributed/Collaborative Design, Control and Communication

An efficient spaceport must provide the ability for all stakeholders to
effectively communicate with each other. This communication must be
accomplished from wherever each stakeholder is, with standard,
available, hardware and software tools such as the internet and standard
browsers. All types of information including procedures, database
records, images, stored video, design data and CAD models must be
viewed, manipulated and restored in this fashion. By providing the
ability to manipulate and modify procedures, graphic data, video, 3D
models and systems as a collaborative team from anywhere, this
capability would drastically lower the number of personnel required to
travel to launch sites and decrease the time to design equipment and
make critical operational decisions.

**Information Systems, Continued:**

6.  Rapid, reliable software engineering processes, methods and tools

Because of the large variation in the number, types and configurations
of launch vehicles, payloads and missions, and the need for quick
turn-around of mission unique assets, the ability to rapidly and
reliably adapt processing and launch systems to unique mission needs
will be critical. This will require processing and launch systems to be
software configurable. A high maturity software services organization
will be required. Software Engineering Institute and industry experience
tells us that it takes about 18 months to 2 years to achieve each
successive SEI maturity level which would indicate a 6 - 10 year journey
to develop the needed software organization and infrastructure. Tools
and technologies must be developed to increase the pace of this process.

7.  Procedure Generation, Tracking, Logistics and Work Control

An advanced enterprise information system must be developed for a
spaceport to operate efficiently. Even as space vehicles and their cargo
become more airplane-like and easier to operate, they will still require
extensive and complex processes to ensure they operate safely. A system
of systems is required to ensure that all required work is performed
correctly, and all of the needed resources and supplies are available at
the proper location and at the proper time. In today's world numerous
disparate systems and a huge workforce is required to ensure this
happens. Simpler processes, vehicles and standardized flows will greatly
reduce this effort. However, integrated, automation systems is the key
to reducing the workforce required for functions such as:

-   Shop floor management and instructions

-   Lowest level task planning

-   Control and feedback (cost, time and schedule performance tracking)

-   Data archiving

-   Accident investigation

-   System configuration and management

-   Predictive maintenance of GSE and facilities

-   Logistics planning, tracking and supply management

-   Procedure generation, tracking and distribution to worksite

Advanced techniques are needed to design, implement and distribute these
systems. A new architecture must be developed so that all systems can be
designed with a common framework, common objects and communication
between functions, databases, users, etc.

**Sensors and Instrumentation**

The effect of instrument miniaturization and the use of light, sound,
and radio technologies offers electrifying opportunities when applied to
space transportation systems. Micro-electromechanical systems sensors,
for instance, can overcome many problems with spaceport data acquisition
including the problems associated with the integrated health monitoring
systems needed for quick turnaround of space vehicles. The integration
of vehicle and ground systems health data into the overall information
system and command and control infrastructure afforded by new sensor
technologies will aid in bringing about third generation space
transportation architectures.

Technology advances in sensing, data acquisition, and control are needed
in both flight and ground elements in order to reach third generation
space transportation objectives. Spaceport operators will require
accurate, precise, global, and non-intrusive instrumentation in order to
enable more than one launch per day at less than \$100 per pound of
payload lifted to orbit.

Several capabilities are required to meet these goals, including:

-   Performance, i.e. accuracy, repeatability, sensitivity, range,
    resolution, weight,

-   Maintainability i.e. calibration, troubleshooting, reliability (in
    operation), dependability (throughout life), non-intrusive,
    standardization (interface and protocols), commonality, robustness
    (survive extremes of temperature as well as rapid thermal shocks,
    resistance to stray electromagnetic fields, corrosive environments,
    and radiation), and versatility,

-   Standards, i.e., new sensors must comply with a standard for ease of
    integration into the data acquisition architecture of the spaceport
    infrastructure, and

-   Cost i.e. to acquire, operate, and maintain.

Check out and maintenance of sensors and associated hardware is a major
spaceport cost driver. Reducing the number of different types of sensors
would reduce the logistics cost of stocking many sensors. In addition,
the maintenance of sensors must be made easier for technicians such as
non-intrusive sensors using light or sound technologies, and the use of
self-calibration and self-diagnostics. A self-calibrating sensor with
self-diagnostic capabilities would help relieve the enormous check out
effort associated with integrated vehicle health monitoring systems.

Autonomous instruments also provide key cost-savings benefits. To
achieve autonomous instruments, methods for removing power and signal
communication lines from sensor must be developed, including new battery
and wireless communications technologies. Advances in IVHM can also
improve the reliability of a launch vehicle by reducing redundancy. In
addition, such advances may be extended to ground systems to monitoring
of the entire space transportation system throughout the spaceport.

Many specific application opportunities exist for ultrasonics, lasers,
fiber optics, microelectronics, and nano-technologies. An enabling
technology for sensors of the future is micro electromechanical systems
(MEMS). MEMS are integrated micro devices or systems combining
electrical and mechanical components. They are fabricated using
integrated circuit (IC) batch processing techniques and can range in
size from micrometers to millimeters, weigh milligrams to ounces, and
cost pennies to tens of dollars. These systems can sense, control, and
actuate on the micro scale, and function individually or in arrays to
generate effects on the macro scale. These devices are low weight, low
volume, low power, low cost sensors and instruments that enable an
insight into system health that has not been available with past
technologies.

**Sensors and Instrumentation, Continued,**

With the cost and weight of sensors coming down, the number of sensors
can be increased. If the reliability and dependability of MEMS can be
improved, and redundancy designed in to the system, the safety and
efficiency of the spaceport workforce can be greatly improved. Instead
of having multiple types of sensors, including power and signal wiring
for each, multiple types of sensors can be integrated on one chip in a
sensor cluster. This would reduce the maintenance by reducing the number
of line tests and interface checks (power and signal), because there
would be fewer wires and connections.

**Command and Control Systems**

Second and third generation space transportation will require Spaceport
command and control (C2) systems capable of supporting flight rates one
and two orders of magnitude higher than current systems. In addition to
productivity, the affordability of such systems must also be improved
versus current implementations. Costs to acquire implement and operate
spaceport command control architectures must improve.

The fundamental needs in this are integrated technologies that work in
unison to create command, control, spaceport services, and traffic
systems that are affordable, flexible, responsive, interoperable, and
easily reconfigured, modified, and upgraded. This includes determining
requirements, technology development, standards, and multi-site
integration needs for comprehensive C2 systems that control the entire
spaceport.

This enables the broad and affordable implementation of industry
standards for COTS (commercial off the shelf) end items / components,
which would overcome barriers to affordability in current systems, such
as multiple differing protocols, standards, software architectures, and
information exchange formats.

A near term investment plan in this area would consist of:

-   A process for identifying requirements across the entire spaceport.

-   A roadmap for expanding C2 capabilities to handle all the functions
    identified.

-   Designation of individual technology needs within the roadmap.

-   Designation of standards, both existing and future, within the
    roadmap.

-   A process for integrating C2 across multiple spaceports and
    spaceliners into the national airspace system.

Areas that require definition and development of integrated command and
control architectures for the unique requirements of 2nd and 3rd Gen
(Spaceliner) type operations offer key opportunities for near-term
investment. As described more fully in the Command and Control
Technology Challenges white paper, the top investment needs in this area
are:

In-Line Direct Functions

-   Automation of checkout and control, including turnaround, servicing
    and launch operations

-   Process Automation Tools

-   Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM)

-   Mobile/portable computing for command and control, including
    wireless technology

Off-Line Support Functions

-   Integration of planning, scheduling, automated diagnostics and
    maintenance / logistics systems

-   Real-time decision support

-   Integrated mission planning and command and control

**Command and Control Systems, Continued,**

In-Flight Functions

-   Space Traffic Control and Management

-   Pre-flight flight plan/object generation, processing, and approval

-   In-flight clearances and flight plan modifications

-   Distributed air/ground responsibilities and data link communications

-   Multi-sensor surveillance

-   Satellite navigation

-   Trajectory modeling and conflict probing

-   Air Traffic management & control system integration

-   Dynamic special use airspace allocation

-   Collision avoidance & situational awareness

Common

-   Operations Concepts

-   Compatible interfaces, data architectures and information exchange
    standards

-   Adaptable, flexible system architectures, open to new and
    unanticipated functions

-   COTS systems, low acquisition costs through industry standard
    systems

-   Software structures for ease of code generation and verification
    reducing lines of code for new applications or spaceport growth and
    modifications.

-   Common launch and flight control equipment for different vehicles

-   Advanced software

-   Real-time object request brokers (ORB's)

-   Simulation

-   Network Architectures

-   Distributed systems, global presence and mobile C2. As more
    functions migrate beyond physical proximity to the spaceport these
    systems technologies / networks and standards will need to be
    integrated into the in-line spaceport infrastructure

-   Communications (voice and data)

-   Next generation internet

Major component / sub-technologies of an integrated command and control
spaceport infrastructure include networks, protocols, and other
standards for communications and data handling. Specifically:

-   Standards: Industry-wide standards that allow multiple vehicles and
    spaceports to communicate with one another.

-   Common communications protocols: a spaceport operations
    communications framework is needed to define standard communication
    protocols between spaceports and launch vehicles, and between
    multiple spaceports.

-   Human factors and human-centered computing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Data fusion and visualization.

**Payloads**

Lightweight, but robust, standard payload carriers (open).

-   Lightweight -- accepting limitations of current system and market
    dynamics. This alternative allows reduced impact on single launch
    payload capability.

-   Soft stowage systems for smaller payloads.

-   Robust -- offering the path to a more responsive operation
    increasing flight rate capability per vehicle by reducing turnaround
    flow time and reducing critical path interference time. Increased
    single vehicle payload capability throughput (tonnage per year).

-   Standard -- similar to robustness, but additional reliability and
    reduced production costs of a shared standard across multiple
    different space transportation systems.

-   Operable - reducing interference with other vehicle work. Such
    interference compounds turnaround time and costs. Payload & cargo
    configuration and de-configuration flight to flight is a major
    driver of current payload & cargo work content. Carrier evolution
    allows efficient off-line processing and subsequent in-line
    integration.

Containerized, standard payload carriers (closed).

-   Enclosed containers -- processed at the spaceport with minimal
    intrusion; reduce the payload and cargo process to simple handling
    and integration of a container with the vehicle.

-   Self contained and self sustained.

-   Payload preparation on or off-site.

Umbilicals and Interfaces

-   Reduction of umbilicals and interfaces -- The development of
    simplified designs and integrated connectors (such as power and
    communications) is required.

-   Automated umbilicals and interfaces -- The development of interfaces
    that are easy to mate, automatically report health, and
    automatically and quickly diagnose any faults are required. Zero
    manual operations are the objective from pre-mate up to and
    including post mate verifications.

-   Common data interface and automated system for health monitoring and
    checkout (i.e. self checkout and standard reporting).

-   Health monitoring, test and diagnostics.

-   Standardized power interfaces.

-   Standardized structural interfaces.

-   Standard fluid services.

Handling

-   Automated, standard systems for monitoring leveling.

-   Automated sensor systems for monitoring payload induced loads during
    handling.

-   Low-cost measurement systems for accurate, no impact hand-offs.

-   Single point/single body motion control system and voice interface.

-   Verification of cleanliness and zero foreign debris.

**Payloads, Continued,**

Analytical Data

-   Standard for representing analysis data such as thermal and
    structural analysis.

-   Standard weight and CG analysis package.

-   Advanced computer support for payload analysis, manifesting and
    mission operations analysis and computations to support mission.

**Traffic Management**

Several enabling technologies in the command and control arena will be
needed to develop a national Spaceport infrastructure. The NAS3
Architecture document identifies future air traffic systems, in the 2008
to 2015 time frame. Some new systems, or concepts yet to be determined,
will be required for specialized Spaceport operations. Based on the
anticipated evolution of the NAS and the Spaceport concepts being
explored by NASA and the commercial space industry, for future Spaceport
design, this section presents an initial set of candidate technologies
that could support the above concepts.

Communications

-   NAS-wide Data Link (air/ground & air/air)

-   NAS-wide Information Network (inter-facility)

-   Emergency Backup Communications

Navigation

-   Integrated Satellite/Inertial Navigation System (airborne)

-   Wide Area & Local Area Augmentation (GPS ground stations)

-   Satellite Landing System

Surveillance

-   Ground-based and Airborne Radar

-   Automated Dependent Surveillance

-   Advanced Weather and Wake Vortex Sensing

-   Strategic and Tactical Collision Avoidance

Displays

-   Low-visibility enhanced reality HUDs

-   Synthetic Vision

-   Integrated glass avionics

Flight/Mission Management

-   Automated Flight Plan Processing & Approval

-   Flight Assessment Fast-time Simulation Tools

-   Integrated Flight Management/ground Control System

-   Trajectory Analysis Conflict Probe

-   Schedule and Decision Support Tools

-   Automated Range Safety and Data Acquisition System

-   Data Achieving and Incident Reporting System

**Range**

As mentioned earlier, technology work for first generation spaceports is
already underway. This work is focused largely on advanced flight
tracking techniques and development of commercial off the shelf products
to support the listed functions. In general, the goal of this work is to
reduce the range infrastructure and its associated maintenance cost. One
of the goals of creating a second generation spaceport is to eliminate
as much of the existing range infrastructure as possible. New technology
is required to achieve this goal; key technology challenges and
suggested research areas are listed below.

Mission Planning

The flight planning process will transform mission objectives into
standard flight plans. A wide range of technology and techniques will be
required to automate this complex process that ust accommodate many
types of vehicles, missions, and operations.

-   Advanced planning systems compatible with commercial computer
    platforms, closely integrated with launch and mission control

-   Trajectory modeling and simulation for various launch sites given
    mission parameters

-   Multi aircraft/spacecraft simulations that predict time and location
    of potential congestion

-   Automated flight planning

-   Orbital transfer simulation

-   Automated conjunction on launch assessment (COLA) models, integrated
    with existing orbital debris databases (NORAD) and automated
    rendezvous maneuvers

-   6 degree of freedom models

-   3D visual representations of mission trajectories with visual cues
    for altitude, heading, and predicted conflicts

-   Integrated Ec analysis with flight safety planning

-   Advanced planning and scheduling systems

-   Integration of spaceport data into the NAS-wide area information
    system (NAS-WIS)

-   Integrated launch and range safety systems

-   Remote configuration of range and vehicle assets

-   Interactive simulation for training and validation

-   Multi-vehicle and multi-fleet mission planning techniques

-   Collaborative environments for building joint flight plans among
    vehicle, payload, and spaceport operators

-   Real-time flight plan updates to accommodate constantly changing
    orbital debris and weather databases

-   Automated flight plan submission

-   Integration of satellite imagery with mission modeling

-   Area and regional notification plans (marine, air, land)

Scheduling

-   Automated planning and scheduling techniques to allocated ground
    assets in a multi-mission or multi-flow environment

-   Synchronization of flight profiles with mission objectives (e.g.,
    "launch window" scheduling for nominal and abort profiles)

**Range, Continued,**

Flight Tracking

New cost-effective and highly reliable techniques for determining the
position of launch vehicles are essential to reducing the existing range
infrastructure. Current operations rely heavily on fixed radar sites,
aircraft, and optical tracking devices. This area appears to be ideally
suited to space-based deployment and standardization. New techniques
include, but are not limited to:

-   GPS tracking (eliminates specialized ground infrastructure)

-   Laser tracking (reduces specialized ground infrastructure)

-   Landing/re-entry tracking

-   Multiple vehicle tracking (in all phases: ascent, on-orbit,
    re-entry)

-   Advanced display techniques

Other technical challenges in flight tracking include:

-   Rotating body tracking

-   Elimination of dedicated downrange tracking instrumentation

-   All weather tracking

Flight Monitoring

Cost-effective and highly reliable techniques are also required for
determining the performance and status of space vehicles during flight.
During a mission, flight status information will be continually updated
and disseminated in real-time. This information will also be displayed
on ATC-system and cockpit situational displays for tactical purposes.
STCs and airspace sectors will be dynamically allocated and monitored to
accommodate the mission and air traffic system demands. This integrated
NAS/Spaceport infrastructure will provide all the necessary services and
capabilities to accommodate space and air traffic operations. This area
is closely related to telemetry and communications. Potential techniques
in this area include:

-   Dynamic airspace reconfiguration

-   Satellite Communications (early proof of concept using TDRSS has
    been demonstrated)

-   IVHM techniques that link on-board health monitors to spaceport
    systems

-   Advanced display techniques

-   Payload monitoring and information distribution to customers

Flight Safety

For expendable vehicles, flight safety is currently culminates in the
flight termination decision. Other range functions, particularly flight
tracking and surveillance, are support functions to this decision making
process. A second generation spaceport must support transportation
systems that have multiple abort profiles for reusable vehicles rather
than termination devices, making the flight safety function much more
complex than a single flight termination decision. Decision support
tools and methods for reducing the size of ground and flight crews are
needed to make this transition while avoiding increased costs. Specific
technology needs include:

**Range, Continued,**

-   Flight safety analysis

-   Orbit, re-entry, and landing modeling

-   Airspace modeling and prediction of flight hazards presented by
    orbital debris and spacecraft, and flight through commercial air
    corridors

-   Real-time position and impact prediction calculations throughout all
    flight phases on standard equipment with human-centered computing
    techniques to improve the user interface

-   Intelligent systems: tools for intelligently collecting,
    representing, sharing, and re-applying highly specialized flight
    safety knowledge to reduce the size of ground crews

-   Intelligent systems: research to determine the optimal architecture,
    knowledge representation techniques, and human/computer interaction
    methods for implementing decision support tools

-   Multi-vehicle and multi-fleet flight safety

-   Integrated Ec analysis for potential failure on ascent, re-entry, or
    landing

-   Multiple Ec algorithms

-   Methods for calculating risk to ground traffic and shipping in the
    flight and re-entry corridor

-   Automated landing support and landing aids

Range Surveillance

-   Area and regional notification (marine, air, land)

-   Automated sea surveillance and situational awareness

-   Advanced display techniques

Weather monitoring and prediction

-   Integrated weather monitoring, forecasting, and visualization

-   Advanced local area/short term weather prediction techniques

-   Integrated local, national, and global information

-   Upper atmosphere monitoring

-   Lightning protection

Telemetry and Communications

-   Multi-vehicle and multi-fleet communications

-   Next generation internet

-   Satellite Communications (early proof of concept using TDRSS has
    been demonstrated)

-   High bandwidth video and audio

-   Data security

-   Advanced timing techniques

-   Data archive and playback

**Range, Continued,**

Emergency Response

-   Drift pattern prediction for toxic vapor clouds

-   Vehicle debris impact prediction and response

-   Sonic boom considerations

Mission Analysis

-   Automated performance analysis of the launch vehicle and air space
    model

RLV support (launch and landing)

Existing range infrastructure does not accommodate the proposed new
generation of reusable launch vehicles. Increased vehicle autonomy,
flight crews and passengers, multiple re-entry, landing, and abort
scenarios all present challenges for existing range systems. Key
technology needs include:

-   RLV processing and simulation

-   Integrated command and control for pre-flight, flight, and re-entry
    operations

-   Planning tools that accommodate RLV flight profiles including ascent
    and re-entry/abort scenarios

-   Real-time abort site selection and modeling for all phases of ascent
    and re-entry

-   Launch vehicle models that include engine and thrust modeling,
    moment of inertia matrices, aerodynamic coefficients, and related
    parameters

Flight Control

Better integration of the flight control function with the
range/spaceport control function is required to support routine
operations at future spaceports. Today, crews, systems, and procedures
from the vehicle manufacturer typically handle "launch" control, while
the USAF provides range control. This separation of authority will
likely be maintained in second and third generation spaceports, as
public safety should be in the hands of an organization with no economic
interest in the flight. However, the coordination between launch/flight
control and range/spaceport control must be improved to reduce the
vehicle-unique infrastructure and costly manual activities that pervade
today's range operations. Technologies to be investigated in this area
include:

-   Simultaneous operation at multiple pads, with different types of
    vehicles

-   Rapid/automated instrumentation reconfiguration

-   Interface standardization

Flight testing

An aggressive flight test program using sub-orbital and LEO launches is
needed to validate new range/spaceport technologies and provide
performance data. Using experimental launch vehicles to also test
spaceport technology makes integration and analysis difficult. A flight
test program using proven flight articles would allow a controlled
stepwise approach to spaceport range technology demonstration. Such a
program is also required to test flight and space-based elements of
spaceport technology.

**Range, Continued,**

-   Space-based range techniques, including GPS tracking and
    satellite-based TT&C

-   IVHM system flight testing

-   Spaceport Testbed products \[[^18]\]

-   Range Technology Testbed

Global Spaceport Infrastructure

The proposed global spaceport network would link spaceports together to
enable coordinated operations and reduce duplicity \[[^19]\].
Information exchange standards are essential to the growth of a
commercial spaceport industry that supports "launch & land anywhere,"
global mission tracking, and cargo/vehicle/spaceport coordination.

Several enabling technologies in the command and control arena will be
needed to develop a national Spaceport infrastructure. The NAS
Architecture document identifies future air traffic systems in the 2008
to 2015 time frame. Some new systems or concepts yet to be determined,
will be required for specialized Spaceport operations. Based on the
anticipated evolution of the NAS and the spaceport concepts being
explored by NASA and the commercial space industry, for future spaceport
design, this section presents an initial set of candidate technologies
that could support the above concept.

Communications

-   NAS-wide Data Link (air/ground & air/air)

-   NAS-wide Information Network (inter-facility)

-   Emergency Backup Communications

Navigation

-   Integrated Satellite/Inertial Navigation System (airborne)

-   Wide Area & Local Area Augmentation (GPS ground stations)

-   Precision Landing System

Surveillance

-   Ground-based and Airborne Radar

-   Automated Dependent Surveillance

-   Advanced Weather and Wake Vortex Sensing

-   Strategic and Tactical Collision Avoidance

-   Space-based Range

Displays

-   Low-visibility enhanced reality HUDs

-   Synthetic Vision

-   Integrated glass avionics

**Range, Continued,**

Flight/Mission Management

-   Automated Flight Plan Processing & Approval

-   Flight Assessment Fast-time Simulation Tools

-   Integrated Flight Management/ground Control System

-   Trajectory Analysis Conflict Probe

-   Schedule and Decision Support Tools

-   Automated Range Safety and Data Acquisition System

-   Data Archiving and Incident Reporting System

**Propellants**

Earth to Orbit space transportation systems objectives of 1+ flights per
day at about \$100 per pound costs will require propellant quantities
roughly two full orders of magnitude greater than current capabilities.

Areas that require technology development for the unique requirements of
Spaceliner type operations include:

-   Energy commodity systems (electricity, steam, heat, syngas,
    propellants, cryogenic fuel and oxidizer, secondary products,
    serving multiple customers, sites/pads):

    -   Production, storage and distribution (especially zero-loss
        transfer / distribution systems).

-   Gas systems (serving multiple sites/pads):

    -   Modular, scalable (especially size and affordability) production
        / liquefaction technologies.

-   Systems architectures development:

    -   Research, development and maturation of innovative combinations
        of architectural options.

    -   Scaling for size and cost, modular, distributed, and/or
        centralized production capabilities.

-   Multiple, affordable, high efficiency systems:

    -   High flow gas / liquid / containment separation.

    -   3Hydrogen separation devices / membranes for passive, economical
        separation from CO2; and -

    -   Air separation and liquefaction systems technologies to lower
        the cost of oxygen to the gasification process as well as toward
        liquefaction processes.

    -   Low desirable fuel feedstock gasification.

    -   Product distribution and recovery.

    -   Highly automated, reliable servicing facilities, health
        management, command and control.

    -   Automated feedback and control systems; monitor and initiate
        transfer and replenishment of propellants to user points based
        on activities (without user intervention).

    -   Recovery and reclamation systems and architecture development
        (versus traditional venting to atmosphere as has been employed
        for relatively small, Shuttle type, quantities.)

**Propellants, Continued,**

Propellants / Servicing Systems Component / Sub-Technologies

-   Automated Umbilicals, Servicing Systems: Ground systems to flight
    vehicle interface including fluids (liquids and gasses), structure,
    electrical (including power, sensors and communications) and
    mechanical (including devices for alignment, remote mating, remote
    demate, and remote reconnection). Hazardous commodities, such as any
    cryogens, as well as cost and flight rate objectives, will dictate
    remote, highly automated, reliable, and robust technology. This area
    must address total systems checkout and automation, including
    cleanliness, fluid and electrical systems integrity, hazardous
    monitoring, and structural loads in order to improve on the true
    cost and productivity drivers caused by such interfaces.

-   Built-in, Non-Intrusive Sensing: Built in test and checkout,
    including (1) moisture monitoring (dewpoints), (2) non-intrusive
    instrumentation (pressure, temperature, flow) so as to avoid leak
    paths (especially cryogens) and associated maintenance, checkout and
    troubleshooting and (3) automatic or self calibration (of sensing /
    signal processing).

-   Reliable, Maintainable, Flexible, Actuation and Control: Industry
    standard and state of the art valve controllers and software,
    self-calibrating, self-adjusting (timing, ease of programming,
    flexible to upgrade and add or modify systems). Commercial off the
    shelf systems (COTS) fulfill functions of unique systems while
    avoiding custom hardware and associated high up-front costs and high
    O&M. Includes safe, electric and pneumatic valve actuation and
    control, with reliable and/or redundant, yet simple systems, for
    critical, hazardous operations.

**Launch Assist**

Major Concept / Technologies

As has been stated above, key issues in development of a Maglev launch
assist capability include levitation and propulsion mechanisms, energy
storage and power delivery, separation dynamics, abort scenarios,
safety, reliability, operability, and maintainability. A major issue is
the scaling up of the Maglev technologies to the size of vehicles on the
order of 10's of thousands of pounds of payload capability.

-   Power Generation and Energy Storage Requirements:

> A scaled-up Maglev will require tremendous amounts of power to meet
> full-scale acceleration requirements on the order of a 1 Million pound
> vehicle and sled. A 10% (by mass) vehicle will require the entire
> output of a commercial 1200 MW power plant for 10 seconds (providing 2
> G's). A million-pound (mass) vehicle will require 10 times as much
> energy for the same period of time. To obtain sufficient reliability,
> multiple component architectures with redundancies will be required to
> eliminate critical failure modes.
>
> Technology development is required in the areas of:

-   Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)

-   Flywheel Energy Storage

-   Super-Capacitors Energy Storage

-   Semiconductor High Speed and High Power Switching

-   Energy Storage Architecture Development: Particular technologies may
    be implemented within various, diverse architectures. Development of
    systems architectures is required for energy storage systems within
    a broader context of Spaceport power infrastructure. This includes
    synergy with power requirements of such systems as propellant
    production, or overall power needs at a spaceport.

Overall technology maturation will focus first on the necessary
development toward the identification of scalable technologies likely to
meet cost, responsiveness (flight rate, recycle rate) and performance
objectives over the life cycle.

-   Magnetic Levitation and Propulsion

> The costs to acquire and to operate a magnetic launch assist system
> will be closely related to the technology maturity and type of
> technology used in the track and sled for developing the required lift
> and propulsive forces. Technologies that require maturation and
> understanding within the context of launch assist requirements (such
> as scale, performance, recycle and cost issues) include:

**Launch Assist, Continued,**

-   Superconducting Magnet Systems

> Technology options include systems capable of withstanding the launch
> environment (vibration, forces) without losing superconducting
> properties (quench phenomenon). The use of larger gaps from sled to
> track (roughly 7.5 cm) versus small clearances with normal conducting
> systems enables the possibility of reduced costs to build the launch
> assist track (more robust to deviations in construction) and to
> maintain it (more robust to deviations over time). Further, the larger
> levitation forces possible reduce design constraints and design
> sensitivity on sled and vehicle weight and size.

-   Normal Conducting Magnet Systems

> · Technology capable of developing the proper forces without the use
> of cryogenic superconductors offers a possibility for systems
> simplification that requires exploration. Passive control systems
> within this context are also required.

-   Electromagnetic Propulsion

> Linear Synchronous Motor technology
>
> Scalable systems capable of being acquired and operated at low cost as
> well as performing over a wide operating range are required.
>
> Linear Induction Motor technology
>
> Scalable systems capable of being acquired and operated at low cost as
> well as performing over a wide operating range are required.

-   Architectural Development -- A Systems Approach

> The trades for adjusting and understanding interactions for the
> combinations of previously identified technologies. Models,
> simulations, and tools for system trades and designs are required that
> quickly establish the viability of design or technology options.

-   Control Operations

    -   Identification of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) hardware and
        software

    -   Integration into C2 architectures

        -   The application of Integrated Vehicle Health Management
            (IVHM) technologies to launch assist system -- supporting
            technologies

        -   Launch Umbilical separation - supporting technologies

        -   Braking - supporting technologies

        -   Safe spacecraft release - supporting technologies

        -   Abort - supporting technologies

        -   Launch assist recycle - supporting technologies

        -   Ground to vehicle and Maglev communications - supporting
            technologies

**Launch Assist, Continued,**

-   Structures and Materials

    -   Guideway

        -   Cost to acquire and operate must be compatible with flights
            per day and small contributions to the cost goals.

        -   Mechanical --supporting technologies

        -   Electrical -- supporting technologies

    -   Cradle / Sled

        -   Must be scaled up to Gen 2 and/or Gen 3 requirements

            -   Resist vehicle engine heat during launch and separation

            -   Provide levitation and propulsion capability for Gen 2
                and 3

# References and Endnotes

[^1]: "Investing in Innovation, Toward a Consensus Strategy for Federal
    Technology Policy," The Steering Committee of the Project on
    Technology Policy Assessment, Lewis Branscomb, Richard Florida,
    David Hart, James Keller, Darin Bovile, Sponsored by the
    Competitiveness Policy Council, April 24, 1997. Quote "The
    consequence of leaving out this "gray area" between science and
    commercial development is the facile assumption that if the work is
    not basic science it must be commercial development and therefore
    government has no business investing in it. Yet this represents a
    critical area which may otherwise be un-addressed."

[^2]: The Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, Launch
    Operations and Support Working Group, has also stressed
    under-funding of Spaceport infrastructure in previous studies such
    as the May 2000 report.

[^3]: "Lessons Learned, Denver International Airport," by Paul Stephen
    Dempsey, Andrew R. Goetz, Joseph S. Szyliowicz, McGraw-Hill, 1997.

[^4]: "NASA should designate KSC \[Kennedy Space Center\] as a National
    Center for next-generation RLV range technology development and
    demonstration..." from ""THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT AND USE OF THE U.S.
    SPACE LAUNCH BASES AND RANGES," REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY WORKING
    GROUP, February 8, 2000; Co-Chairs: Office of Science and Technology
    Policy, National Security Council, Working Group Member
    Organizations: Office of Management and Budget, Department of
    Defense, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation,
    United States Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration, National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Reconnaissance
    Office.

[^5]: Mankins, John C. (1997) "A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New
    Architectures, Concepts and Technologies," International
    Astronautical Federation (IAF).

[^6]: Vision Spaceport Artwork by Pat Rawlings of Science Applications
    International Corporation (SAIC).

[^7]: Spaceport Synergy Team (1997) "A Catalog of Spaceport
    Architectural Elements with Functional Definition," Preliminary
    Modeling Definition Document, Prepared for the Highly Reusable Space
    Transportation Synergy Team by NASA KSC, Lockheed-Martin, McDonnell
    Douglas, Boeing North American, and Command and Control Technologies
    Corp.

[^8]: CSTS Alliance (1994), Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Martin
    Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell \"The Commercial Space
    Transportation Study, Executive Summary and Final Report,\" NASA
    Contract No. NAS1-19247, 19242, 19241, 18230, 19244 and 19243.

[^9]: White papers available at:
    <http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Task8/SpaceportTeamReports/WhitePapers/>

[^10]: Shuttle value of \$6000 per pound is based on an analysis of
    Fiscal Year 1999 Shuttle budget, excluding non-recurring,
    non-operations items. Value represents operational, recurring only,
    budget of \~\$2,487M spread over an 8 flight per year capability,
    with a payload capability of 53,500 pounds to 100nm, 28.5 circ. The
    actual number of flights flown that Fiscal Year was 4 (STS-88 and
    STS-95 in Calendar Year 1998, Fiscal Year 1999, and STS-96 and
    STS-93 in Fiscal Year 1999). By Calendar Year, 1999 had 3 flights
    (STS-96, 93 and 103). Accounting is further complicated by work for
    a launch in one year mostly being accomplished in another year.
    Further, the actual payload tonnage carried varies widely from
    flight to flight from the maximum capability indicated. Based on
    this analysis, the value of \$6000 per pound is a semi-useful
    approximation of costs. The value leans toward a lower value than
    would be assessed taking into account more factors.

[^11]: Shuttle value of \~\$95M per flight marginal costs (actual costs
    incurred for an additional flight) is based on a modeling analysis
    using data from the NASA Zero Base Cost Study of 1990 and the NASA
    Budget of 1999. Fixed and variable costs were updated to Fiscal Year
    1999 by distillation of data. The value of \~\$95M occurs as a
    result of \~\$1,728M in fixed, operations, recurring costs for
    Shuttle for Fiscal Year 1999 leaving a value of \~\$759M in total
    variable costs. Total costs were budgeted at \~\$2,487M in Fiscal
    Year 1999. Total variable costs spread over an 8 flight per year
    capability yields an average of \~\$95M per flight. Accounting is
    further complicated by variations in variable costs from flight to
    flight such that an 8^th^ flight is less marginal cost than a 2^nd^.
    Actual flight rate in Fiscal Year 1999 was 4. Also, such an
    approximation is best used only for flight rates below 12 to 15 per
    year above which the previous analysis would require reassessment.

[^12]: Two years later, in 1997, per the "Heritage Foundation
    Backgrounder, Executive Summary, The New Space Race: Challenges for
    U.S. National Security and Free Enterprise," (August 25, 1999)
    quoting "Remarks by Clayton Mowry, Executive Director of the
    Satellite Industry Association, at Space Technology and Business, an
    Aerospace Expo in Washington, D.C., 1999" the value of global
    commercial space activity "...generated some \$51 billion in
    revenues in 1997, including -- over \$19 billion from satellite
    services; over \$13 billion from manufacturing of spacecraft; over
    \$11 billion in manufacturing ground based equipment to launch,
    monitor, track and manage spacecraft; and over \$7 billion from the
    space launch industry"

[^13]: Variations on these market values are to be found in numerous
    sources including "The Volpe Study Final Report, Building on
    Florida's Strength in Space, A Plan for Action," prepared by the
    John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and
    Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
    Study sponsored by Executive Office of the Governor, Office of
    Tourism, Trade and Economic Development, December 1999.

[^14]: McCleskey, C. M., Un-published, Spaceport Technology Development
    Office, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Spaceport Technology
    Development Office. Sources of information include Space Launch
    Reference Guide, 3rd ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and
    Astronautics (AIAA) publication, Isakowicz, et al, 1999 and FAA AST
    space launch database, McCallister, et al.

[^15]: Reference Annex E and Table 2.0 of "THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT AND USE
    OF THE U.S. SPACE LAUNCH BASES AND RANGES," REPORT OF THE
    INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP, February 8, 2000; Co-Chairs: Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, National Security Council, Working
    Group Member Organizations: Office of Management and Budget,
    Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, Department of
    Transportation, United States Air Force, Federal Aviation
    Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
    National Reconnaissance Office.

[^16]: "Developing Operable Launch Systems: New Methods and Tools," by
    R.A Hickman, J.D. Adams, J.P. Mayberry and M.A. Goodney, The
    Aerospace Corporation, 45^th^ Congress of the International
    Astronautical Federation, October 9-14, 1994, Jerusalem, Israel.

[^17]: More information on the Checkout and Launch Control System (CLCS)
    may be found at: "Upgrading the Space Shuttle, Committee on Space
    Shuttle Upgrades, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board,
    Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research
    Council". National Academy Press. Chapter 4.

[^18]: \[^?^\] Brown, K., McCleskey, C., *National Spaceport Testbed*,
    37th Space Congress, May 2000.
    [http://www.cctcorp.com/testbed]{.underline}

[^19]: \[^?^\] Brown, K.R., "Linking Information Systems Between
    Independent Spaceports," TechEast '99, Miami Beach, Florida.
    November 3, 1999.