# Presentation: 025819

## Heliophysics Access to Space using Non-Traditional Launch Arrangements

Dave Tratt
The Aerospace Corporation

**Heliophysics Access to Space using Non-Traditional Launch Arrangements**
**Dave Tratt**
**The Aerospace Corporation**

**© 2008 The Aerospace Corporation**

## Overview

- What motivates the Heliophysics Division and partner organizations to consider non-traditional launch arrangements?
- Discussion of three classes of non-traditional launch arrangements
- Missions of opportunity
- Surplus vehicles
- International Space Station
- What Heliophysics science can be done with non-traditional launch arrangements?
- What is needed to make non-traditional launch arrangements work for Heliophysics?
- Summary of key points

## Motivation for NASA

**An increasing imperative to maximize return on investment by minimizing costs**
**NASA is too small a player to motivate commercial entities to develop new vehicles**
**The NASA market alone could not sustain Delta 2 and when military and commercial demand declined, the line was discontinued**

**Notes:**
Harp on the idea that 940 mission are going up, most in the next N years.  Maybe even add a timeline graphic showing the number of missions planned per year.  This point should make them sit up and take notice.

## Motivation for Partner

**An increasing imperative to maximize return on investment by minimizing costs**
- Common to NASA
**One frequent barrier is that the economics can be countervailing**
**A $1B mission risked by a $10M cost contribution cannot alone justify a MOO**
**Co-manifesting of a pair of similarly priced missions carries considerably more financial risk if one of the missions encounters schedule difficulties**
**NASA and the partner should ideally converge on common mission goals**
- Both partners gain
- Desirable that host mission perceives negligible risk in accommodating guest payload
- Successful examples start as collaborative ventures from the outset
**The Solar Orbiter –  ESA-led mission launched by the US with both US and European instruments**
**C/NOFS – AFRL/STP with NASA instruments**
**RBSP – NASA mission hosting a guest instrument**

## Classes of Opportunity

**Three basic classes of alternative launch were considered:**
**Missions Of Opportunity (MOOs)**
**Payloads hosted on a non-dedicated spacecraft**
**Many options covered under SALMON (Stand-Alone Missions Of Opportunity) RFI**
**Large number of launches scheduled – considerable scope for MOOs**
**The International Space Station (ISS)**
**Surplus DOD vehicles**
**Decommissioned ICBMs (e.g., Minotaur)**

## Missions of Opportunity

- Definition
- From the SALMON homepage:
**Partner Missions of Opportunity**
**U.S. Participating Investigators**
**New Science Missions using Existing Spacecraft**
**Small Complete Missions**
**Focused Opportunities**
- What’s available
- Commercial
- Military
- Foreign
- Other civil (non-NASA)

## Where’s it all going?

- (*“Other” includes unspecified*)

## How Suitable are MOOs for Heliophysics Science?

- First essential element is orbit suitability
- Remote sensing techniques
- Generally compatible with a wide range of orbit types
- Works well for disciplines relying on well-developed remote-sensing techniques
- Solar and Ionosphere/Thermosphere
- In-situ sampling techniques
- Requirement to spend appreciable time in regions of interest is limiting
- Somewhat workable for portions of some disciplines
- LEO can address some aspects of Ionosphere/Thermosphere science
- GEO can address some Magnetosphere topics
- Evaluated possibilities for the 64 quadchart missions in 2005 Roadmap
- Breakdown of entire complement
- By needed orbit type
- LEO
- GEO
- Other
- By share possibility
- Can work on shared space platform
- Can share a ride
- Needs dedicated mission

## How Suitable are MOOs for Heliophysics Science?

- Evaluation of possibilities for the **64** quadchart missions in 2005 Roadmap
- Orbit types
**15** could be done in LEO
**6** could be done in GEO
**45** required “other” orbits
**25** required non-lunar planetary or heliocentric trajectories – very few opportunities
**19** required more than one spacecraft
- Share type
- Platform share: **15**
- Ride share:  **11**
- Dedicated ride needed:  **38**
- Use of Roadmap missions probably presents a picture that is skewed toward dedicated missions
- Dedicated missions seen as more likely than MOOs during Roadmap process
**It is clear that MOOs cannot do everything, but they could be an important tool in some areas**

## Can HP make MOOs work well?

**Leverage the new NASA SALMON process**
**Promises to shorten the time that an opportunity takes to get thru the system**
_***However***_**, the funding process for SALMON remains unclear**
**Institute annual RFI for MOOs that drive the SALMON budgeting process?**
**Establishment of a “outreach team” to match ride seekers with potential MOO launches would facilitate joint ventures**
**Would need high-level NASA HQ support and **_***sustained commitment***_
**Consider STP as a model: STP dedicates staff to finding possible rides and also developed the ESPA ring for secondary payloads manifested on EELV**

## Surplus Vehicles

- Reprinted with permission of William G. Hartenstein

- Launch of DARPA’s Streak mission by Minotaur I booster

- Not exactly a “non-traditional” launch method, as the suborbital program has employed surplus for years
- Think about boosters available to DOD such as Minotaur series
- Capabilities
- Minotaur I
- 500 kg to 600 km circular, low-inclination
- Minotaur IV
- 1650 kg to 600 km circular, low-inclination
- Minotaur V
- 678 kg to GTO
- Example mission from RM
- Need high-level sign-off
- Need to motivate DOD
- Dual-purpose missions?
- Need engagement by NASA HQ at appropriate levels

## International Space Station

- ISS capabilities for hosting Heliophysics investigations
- Orbit is 340 km circular, 51.6 deg inclination
- External attach points for payloads, including Exposed Facilities on the Columbus and Japanese Experiment Modules
- Also has pressurized experiment area with viewing window (primarily for Earth Science)
- Suitability
*In-situ* capabilities limited to specific region of ionosphere-thermosphere system
- Disturbances of natural environment must also be considered
- Remote-sensing capabilities greater
- NRL/Aerospace RAIDS instrument observes limb emissions from the ionosphere-thermosphere system in several wavelengths
- Suitable for solar observations?
- Programmatics
- Amendment to last year’s Small Explorer opportunity added possibility to fly a payload on the ISS as a MOO
- Will such opportunities continue?  What is Townhall recommendation?
- How much effort is required to work with ISS?
- Safety obviously a larger concern for ISS than robotic missions

- Figure from NASA website:  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/nlab/platform.html
- Reprinted courtesy of NASA

- NRL/Aerospace RAIDS instrument to fly on ISS/JEM-EF

## How can non-traditional launch arrangements be used strategically?

- A disconnect appears evident when making plans to advance strategic science goals using assets over which relatively little control can be asserted
- Is there a way around this problem?
- Executive-level NASA MOUs established with other launch and spacecraft operators would streamline process of manifesting MOOs

## Summary

- A large amount of hardware goes into orbit every year
- Effective use of non-traditional launch arrangements requires a concerted effort by NASA
- Small Payload Rideshare Conference/Workshop
- Annual gathering to discuss issues related to access to space for small payloads
_**Acknowledgement**_
- 	The recommendations contained in this presentation benefited from several helpful conversations with Jim Clemmons and Norm Lao, both with The Aerospace Corporation.