Testimony of Mr. Ray F. Johnson 

Vice President, Space Launch Operations 

 The Aerospace Corporation 

Before the House Science Committee 

Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman 

October 29, 2003 

1 
Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members and staff: 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to describe the capabilities of The Aerospace 

Corporation as they relate to organizational and management “best practices” of 

successful safety and mission assurance programs. Aerospace is truly a unique 

organization. Our capabilities, core competencies and practices are the result of 43 years 

of operating a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for the 

National Security Space program. 

I will discuss the committee’s questions as outlined in the invitation letter, but first I 

would like to present an overview of Aerospace and specifically what we do for the Air 

Force in the area of launch readiness verification. 

The nature and value of The Aerospace Corporation 

The Aerospace Corporation is a private, nonprofit corporation, headquartered in El

Segundo, California. It was created in 1960 at the recommendation of Congress and the 

Secretary of the Air Force to provide research, development and advisory services to the 

U.S. government in the planning and acquisition of space, launch and ground systems and 

their related technologies. The key features of Aerospace are that we provide a stable, 

objective, expert source of engineering analysis and advice to the government, free from 

organizational conflict of interest. We are focused on the government’s best interests,

with no profit motive or predilection for any particular design or technical solution. 

As its primary activity, Aerospace operates an FFRDC sponsored by the Under Secretary 

of the Air Force, and managed by the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in El 

Segundo, California. Our principal tasks are systems planning, systems engineering, 

integration, flight readiness verification, operations support and anomaly resolution for 

the DoD, Air Force, and National Security Space systems. Through our comprehensive 

2 
knowledge of space systems and our sponsor’s needs, our breadth of staff expertise, and 

our long term, stable relationship with the DoD, we are able to integrate technical lessons 

learned across all military space programs and develop systems-of-systems architectures 

that integrate the functions of many separate space and ground systems. 

Aerospace does not compete with industry for government contracts, and we do not 

manufacture products. The government relies on Aerospace for objective development of 

pre-competitive system specifications, and impartial evaluation of competing concepts 

and engineering hardware developments, to ensure that government procurements can 

meet the military user’s needs in a cost-and-performance-effective manner. 

Aerospace employs about 3,450 people, of whom 2,400 are scientists and engineers with 

expertise in all aspects of space systems engineering and technology. The professional 

staff includes a large majority, 74%, with advanced degrees, with 29% holding Ph.Ds. 

The average experience of Members of the Technical Staff (MTS) is more than 25 years. 

We recruit more than two-thirds of our technical staff from experienced industry sources 

and the rest from new graduates, university staff, other nonprofit organizations, 

government agencies, and internal degree programs. 

Aerospace has maintained a 43-year strategic partnership with the DoD and the National 

Security Space community, developing a data and experience base that covers virtually 

every military space program since 1960. We have evolved an unparalleled set of 

engineering design, analysis and systems simulation tools, along with computational, 

diagnostic test, and research facilities in critical space-specific disciplines that are used in 

day-to-day support of government space system programs. 

Aerospace is the government’s integral engineering arm for National Security Space 

systems architecture and engineering. As such, Aerospace has broad access to 

intelligence information, government requirements development, all programs and 

contractors’ proprietary data and processes, and the full scope of government program 

planning information. We translate the requirements dictated by Congress and the 

3 
military and national security management into engineering specifications that form the 

basis for competitive Request for Proposals (RFPs) to industry. We evaluate contractor 

technical designs and performance, and provide continuing technical insight and progress 

assessment for the government program manager throughout the engineering 

development, test and initial operation phases of space systems. In order to do this, 

Aerospace must have technical experience and breadth at least equal to the industrial 

firms we evaluate. I am extremely proud of the quality and performance record of our 

staff, as evidenced by the outstanding success record of the space launches and satellite 

systems Aerospace has technically supported on behalf of its government sponsors. 

The Aerospace technical program office MTS are supported by a matrix of 1,000 

engineering and scientific specialists in every discipline relevant to space systems, with

extensive laboratory and diagnostic facilities. Typically, an expert in a particular field -- 

propulsion, microelectronics, or infrared sensors, for example -- will work on several 

programs during the course of a year, as each program has a need for a particular skill 

depending on its program phase. This approach permits Aerospace to develop and 

maintain state-of-the-art analytical and simulation models and test facilities that could not 

be afforded by a single program or contractor, but are efficiently used as needed by all 

programs. 

Aerospace systems engineering currently supports 29 satellite programs, 8 launch vehicle 

boosters, and 13 ground station elements for the DoD and National Security customers. 

Our functions can be summarized as follows, covering the entire system acquisition 

process: 

• planning and systems studies -- pre-competitive systems definition 

• trade-offs and simulations of system requirements to help prioritize user needs 

• technical RFPs and technical evaluation of proposals 

• early detection of development problems and timely identification of alternative 

solutions, to preserve schedule, cost and performance 

• independent analysis, verification, and validation of data and performance to assure 

mission success 

4 
• launch verification and readiness assessments (boosters, satellites and ground 

systems), 

• launch and on-orbit operations and workarounds 

Aerospace’s launch readiness verification process 

Independent launch readiness verification is a core competency of Aerospace as defined 

in our charter as an FFRDC supporting the Air Force. As such, Aerospace is directly 

accountable to SMC for verification of launch readiness. This responsibility is vested 

within the Space Launch Operations program offices and executed using our launch 

readiness verification process. 

Prior to any launch, Aerospace provides a letter to SMC documenting the results of the 

launch verification process, confirming flight readiness of the launch vehicle. This letter 

is not just a formality, but represents the culmination of a long and rigorous assessment 

that draws upon the collective expertise of scientists and engineers within the program 

office and the engineering staff. The launch readiness verification letter provided by the 

Aerospace Vice President of Space Launch Operations to the Air Force was first 

introduced in the late 1970s to document our corporate commitment to mission success. 

This formal launch readiness verification provides assurance that all known technical 

issues have been assessed and resolved, residual launch risks have been satisfactorily 

assessed, and establishes confidence in launch mission success. The ultimate GO/NO-GO 

launch decision and flightworthiness certification rests with SMC, not Aerospace, 

however, the Air Force relies heavily on our readiness assessment in building confidence 

in its final decision. 

The process used to independently determine launch system flight readiness is a 

capability that has evolved over 40 years. Aerospace’s role in independent launch 

readiness verification began with the Mercury-Atlas program in 1960, shortly after the 

corporation was founded. The Project Mercury launch vehicle had suffered two failures 

and a turnaround in reliability was required before human space flight could be 

5 
attempted. The risk reduction techniques that Aerospace developed were instrumental in 

achieving mission success. Since then, we have applied this process to the design, 

development, and operation of more than 600 launches including all Atlas, Delta, Inertial 

Upper Stage, and Titan launch vehicle variants resulting in a proven track record of

reducing launch risk. 

The fundamental features of our launch readiness verification have been the same since 

first employed. Verification begins as early as the concept and requirements definition 

phase of most programs and continues through flight operations. Launch verification 

certification and readiness assessments include design, qualification, fabrication, 

acceptance, software, mission analysis, integration and test. Thorough launch readiness 

verification requires a detailed review by Aerospace staff of thousands of components,

procedures, and test reports to verify flight readiness. Independent models are developed 

and maintained by Aerospace domain experts and exercised to validate and verify the 

contractors’ results. Resident Aerospace engineers are involved in all aspects of the 

launch campaign from manufacture through launch site operations. Launch readiness 

verification is a closed loop process via post flight analyses that use the independent 

analytical tools and independently acquired and processed flight telemetry data to provide 

feedback into the engineering design process, capture lessons learned, monitor trends, 

and establish a basis for proceeding into the next launch cycle. 

To accomplish the entire spectrum of launch readiness verification requires that 

Aerospace retain a diverse cadre of skilled engineers with expertise in a wide variety of 

disciplines including systems engineering, mission integration, structures and mechanics, 

structural dynamics, guidance and control, power and electrical, avionics, telemetry, 

safety, flight mechanics, environmental testing, computers, software, product assurance, 

propulsion, fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, thermal, ground systems, facilities and 

operations. Our major objective is to retain the necessary skills and expertise needed to 

support planned as well as unexpected events. 

6 
The launch readiness verification process was reinvigorated in the late 1990s following a 

series of launch failures. Among the observations of the Space Launch Broad Area 

Review were that the root cause was the lack of disciplined system engineering in the 

design and processing of launch vehicles exacerbated by a premature dismantling of 

government oversight capability, particularly the engineering support capabilities; that 

space launch needed to re-establish clear lines of authority and accountability; that space 

launch is inherently more engineering intensive than other operational systems; and that 

properly conducted independent review is an essential element of mission success. 

Now, I will address the committee’s specific questions: 

1. What does it mean for a safety program to be "independent?” How is your 

organization structured to ensure its independence? 

The government’s requirement for the Aerospace FFRDC mission requires complete 

objectivity and freedom from conflict of interest; a highly expert staff; full access to all 

space programs and contractor data sources; special simulation, computational, 

laboratory and diagnostic facilities; and continuity of effort that involves detailed 

familiarity with the sponsor’s programs, past experience, and future needs. We are 

focused on the government’s best interests, with no profit motive or predilection for any 

particular design or technical solution. 

Although the Aerospace program offices are co-located with the Air Force programs, 

they are separate organizations with their own management structure. Technical 

recommendations are worked up through Aerospace management and are then presented 

to the Air Force. In addition to the launch verification letter, a formal launch readiness 

briefing is given to the Aerospace president. At this review, our president confirms that

our technical analyses are thorough and objective, and our recommendations are based on 

sound engineering principles. Although the Aerospace launch readiness verification 

products are produced independently from those of the prime contractor, we also employ 

another independent review organization that reports to the SMC Commander. This 

independent review team also briefs our president on its findings to ensure that our 

7 
process has yielded acceptable risks. This review is conducted just prior to the SMC 

Commander’s Flight Readiness Review (FRR). The Aerospace president is polled during 

the Commander’s FRR for his concurrence to proceed with final launch processing. 

2. Given that more can always be done to improve safety, how do you ensure 

that your safety program is independent and vigilant, but that it won't prevent the 

larger organization from carrying out its duties? 

The key elements here are teamwork, technical rigor, and a goal for 100% mission 

success. Aerospace program offices are co-located with the Air Force programs and 

Aerospace engineers are in daily contact with their Air Force counterparts. Aerospace 

recognizes our obligation to identify issues in a timely manner and to keep the Air Force 

aware of any technical issues that may impact the overall program. The launch readiness 

verification process is involved with all phases of the program and is not merely a final 

assessment that is performed just prior to launch. The failures of 1998 and 1999 were in 

part due to ineffective teamwork. All successes since then can be attributed to a complete 

team effort among Aerospace, the Air Force, and the contractors. All team members 

understand and respect the value of the individual responsibilities and contributions. 

While vigilance and independence can identify otherwise unobserved risks, the entire 

team must work together to allow the larger organization to carry out its duties to achieve 

flightworthiness certification and a successful mission. 

Just as important as teamwork is the technical rigor employed in the process to reach 

certification. We employ a well-defined launch readiness verification process with 

individual responsibilities and accountability. The burden of proof requires a positive 

demonstration that a system is flightworthy, rather than proving that an anomalous 

condition will cause a flight failure. The launch readiness verification process is part of 

an overarching flight readiness process. Many unforeseen events occur during each 

launch campaign that must be acted upon. The process rigor that we employ assures that 

no single event or issue is overlooked or prematurely closed. With 100% focus on 

mission success, the technical rigor and commitment by each team member enhances the 

larger organization decision process. 

8 
3. How do you ensure that the existence of Aerospace’s mission assurance 

program and independent launch verification process does not allow the larger 

organization that it serves to feel that it is absolved of responsibility for safety? 

Final flightworthiness certification is the responsibility of the SMC Commander. At the 

final FRR, the Commander receives input from several organizations prior to giving the 

GO to proceed with launch processing. The Commander receives input from the Air 

Force Mission Director, launch vehicle program managers, launch ranges, SMC Chief 

Engineer, prime contractors, spacecraft program managers, Aerospace, and the 

Independent Readiness Review Team (IRRT). 

 

Aerospace is directly accountable to SMC for the verification of launch readiness. Our 

task is to independently confirm readiness of the launch vehicle, assess mission risks, and 

assure that all risks are acceptably low to enter into launch. The ultimate GO/NO-GO 

launch decision rests with the SMC Commander, not Aerospace; however, the Air Force 

relies heavily on our readiness assessment in building confidence in the final decision. 

4. How do you ensure that dissenting opinions are offered without creating a 

process that can never reach closure? 

The verification process includes all stakeholders at major decision points and 

milestones. Dissenting opinions are heard and data is required to resolve engineering 

issues. Aerospace makes every effort to ensure that our positions are based on sound 

engineering practices backed up by factual data. Aerospace’s engineering staff 

objectively develops their technical recommendations and supporting analyses that are 

then coordinated with the Aerospace program offices and management. Management 

encourages the sharing of all points of view and is responsible for ultimately deciding on 

a final recommendation. When an issue is well founded in science and engineering, the 

path forward is usually identifiable, e.g., additional inspections, tests, analyses, etc. For 

issues that do not have concrete solutions, risks are assessed by senior review teams 

based on technical data. When a “pure” technical solution is not possible, the Air Force is 

provided with a risk assessment that outlines the degree of risk associated with each 

course of action. 

9 
As I mentioned previously, the independent launch readiness verification end-to-end 

system review process culminates in a launch readiness assessment for each mission. A 

formal flight readiness certification provides assurance that all known technical issues 

have been assessed and resolved, residual launch risks have been satisfactorily assessed 

and confidence in launch mission success has been established as acceptable. It is this 

process, as outlined in the following figure, that ensures acceptable closure of every 

issue. 

 Internal 

Mission 

Assurance 

 Independent

Launch 

Verification Independent 

Launch Risk 

Assessment

Flight

Worthiness

Certification

Flight

Readiness

Review

Launch 

Readiness 

Verification 

Launch 

Readiness 

Review

Post 

Flight

Analysis

Contractor 

 Mission 

Assurance

IRRT/MAT

 Independent

Review

Process

Flight Readiness Review Process 

I would like to leave you with some concluding summary thoughts: 

• Aerospace is focused on the success of its sponsor’s mission 

• Aerospace is the integral space systems engineering arm of the Air Force and 

National Security Space program 

• The key to Aerospace’s value and effectiveness is our process of systems

engineering: 

- stable, objective, expert advice backed by analysis and experiment 

10 
- a trusted partner with our sponsors and industry 

- breadth and depth of staff in all space disciplines 

- access to sensitive planning and proprietary data 

- continuity across all space programs and technologies 

- co-location with the government customer

In closing, our success depends largely on the close, intimate relationship we have with 

our government customers. We are physically integrated and programmatically aligned 

with our customers. It is this totally integrated approach that allows Aerospace to use its 

technical and scientific skills in support of the National Security Space program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to describe The Aerospace Corporation, its Launch 

Readiness Verification program, and contribution to mission success. 

I stand ready to provide any further data or discussions that the committee may require. 

11