Technical Sessions

Session I: New Elements

Chair: Kent Miller, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)

Monday, August 10, 2009

2:45 p.m. Fractionated Space Architectures: Tracing the Path to Reality

Owen Brown, Paul Eremenko – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Matt Bille – Booz Allen Hamilton

ABSTRACT: In an effort to achieve responsiveness, increase effectiveness, and reduce the uncertainty involved in maintaining a space architecture dependent on a few high‐capacity, high‐cost satellites, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has proposed the concept of fractionated spacecraft. DARPA plans to compress spacecraft development timelines, enable launch with smaller, more responsive vehicles, and make the spacecraft architecture fundamentally flexible and robust. DARPA’s System F6 (Future Fast, Flexible, Free‐Flying, Fractionated Spacecraft united by Information eXchange) is a technological and paradigmatic demonstrator of this concept.

While fractionated architecture is likely to significantly transform the technology base, as well as the development and operational concept for delivering on‐orbit capability, this disruptive concept arose from a substantial and rather distinguished pedigree of foundational thoughts, concepts, and demonstrators developed throughout the Space Age as designers have explored satellite constellations, cooperative spacecraft, distributed systems, and miniaturization. Concepts or programs ranging from pioneers like the Transit navigation and IDSCP/DSCS‐I communications satellite efforts through the Air Force’s XSS series, NASA’s New Millennium, DART, and TPF programs, Orbcomm, ANTS, TechSat‐21, GPS, and many others have contributed to the stream of innovation leading to the architectural paradigm shift of the F6 program.

It was not just the promise of new technologies and operational concepts that led to the genesis of F6, but also the deficiencies of the conventional, monolithic approach to space systems that largely pervades the industry today. This paper traces the development of the intellectual, technological, and policy foundations of the fractionated spacecraft concept throughout the preceding decades. We conclude with an assessment of future hurdles to its proliferation and make some projections about its likely applicability to various space missions in the years to come.

3:00 p.m. When Quantity Matters…

Luca Maresi – European Space Agency (ESA); Thomas Walati – Astrium GMBH Satellites

ABSTRACT:Quality and performance are very often the design drivers of engineers working on Space Projects. Reliability and availability of space systems are requirements on a single unit. In case the unit fails or underperforms, the mission is not accomplished or seriously compromised. The Quality Assurance has the task of making sure that the satellite complies with the specifications and operates flawless for the entire life. In mass production, the role of Quality Assurance is to minimize, not to eliminate, the number of defects. A certain number of defective units are acceptable. They are repaired or replaced during the guarantee period.

How far are satellites from the point where the production cost is so low that replacing a defective unit is cheaper than ensuring it is defective free? Once the satellite market has reached that point, we can say that quantity matters more than quality. In recent years, space projects have seen the deployment of recurrent units for constellations, as GPS, Iridium, Globalstar, and others. Still the number of recurrent units is too small to make a difference.

We still need to reach the point where satellites can be built and launched for a fraction of the present cost. Do technologies and methodologies of small satellites play a role to reach the turning point where quantity makes the difference? Is there any market requiring enough recurrent units to push down the development cost per unit to a negligible level?

The paper analyzes the technology maturity of small satellites and shows how far small satellites are from the point where the quantity matters more than quality. The work analyses market dynamics and how non‐space technologies may play a new role in deploying new space assets. The paper shows the pace at which space technologies are approaching the turning point where quantity matters more than quality.

3:15 p.m. Enabling International Collaboration on ORS

Robert Pugh – Think Strategically, LLC.; Jeffry Welsh – Operationally Responsive Space Office; James Lyke – Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate

ABSTRACT: Even before the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office was established, ORS pioneers in DoD expressed a strong desire to collaborate with our allies to realize the ORS vision. Many US allies are already experts at developing and exploiting small satellites and streamlining mission operations for civil and defense applications. Moreover, many of the envisioned ORS missions will undoubtedly support joint allied tactical operations, so having our partners become familiar with ORS concepts and technology now will only simplify future ORS planning and operations. Recognizing the need to work within the framework of DoD Policy, a first step toward this international collaboration was identified as the GIST program. The ORS/AFRL GIST, or Globalize and Internationalize Standards and Technology, program will focus on developing and documenting the legal foundation and establishing the international team to participate in developing ORS Standards. Subsequent steps will likely include, for example, empowering teams of American and allied experts to collaborate on ORS RDT&E activities. In the near term, though, GIST will establish a collaborative environment that will allow US and allied industry, government, and academic organizations to partner in developing the standards and technologies that are key to enabling the “R” in ORS.

The GIST approach establishes two complementary channels for collaboration. The first channel is based on a series of bilateral and multilateral government‐to‐government memoranda and agreements that create the financial and management infrastructure needed to direct and support the activities of the other entities (companies, consortia, universities, etc) as well as involve government R&D organizations in standards development. The second channel is based on establishing US agreements and similar instruments in allied countries, if required, to authorize the “other entities” to exchange the technical information required to develop and document the ORS Standards.

3:30 p.m. Incorporating a Test Flight into the Standard Development Cycle

Steve Wichman, Mike Pratt, Spencer Winters – Redefine Technologies, Inc.

ABSTRACT: What could be called a Catch‐22, or at least a thorny obstacle, exists in the standard development cycle. A component does not get into space until it’s proven, and it’s not proven until it gets into space. Of course, this is not absolute, but a gray area nevertheless exists in this aspect of the development cycle. This paper proposes the insertion of a test flight into the standard development cycle and, in the process, will detail the logistics, options, and costs associated with such a proposal. Finally, it will outline the ways in which customers—those purchasing new technologies—can use the concept of test flights to their advantage in the buying process.

3:45 p.m. What Goes Around, Comes Around: New Solutions to Old Problems

Craig Clark – Clyde Space Ltd

ABSTRACT: For decades, clever people in and around the space industry have been dreaming up ways of using space for commercial or scientific gain. However, in many cases the ideas, though valid, were not economically or technologically feasible. Arthur C. Clarke dreamt up the concept for geostationary satellites long before there was even a means to get satellites into space, and many more ideas have came and went in the period in between never to manifest themselves as real missions.

This paper will explore proposed mission concepts that were before their time and will assess their relevance to today’s technology and capability. In addition, it will assess the suitability of today’s technology to enable old problems to be solved. In particular, the paper will use the CubeSat platform as an example of a very low‐cost means of launching multiple spacecraft into orbit to meet specific application needs. The paper will also assess the use of today’s small satellite technology to service the gap in the long existing need for data for the purposes of science, communication and prediction/warning of natural disasters. Finally, conclusions will be drawn as to the impact that small and miniature spacecraft can have on the future commercial, science and data driven space mission of the next 10 years and what the author considers to be the most relevant barriers and opportunities to the growth of small satellite success in these areas.