|
SPACE TECHNOLOGY
July 2007
Pentagon Pushes for Smaller Satellites, Faster Launches
By Stew Magnuson
 As the Roadrunner satellite breaks the horizon, an Army officer sends a command through the network asking the spacecraft to point its camera to an area over a mountain ridge to the east. He wants to know who or what is facing his troops before they launch an attack.
By the time the satellite leaves his line of sight a few minutes later, the officer already has an image on his terminal.
This is one of several operational experiments being carried out this year by the Roadrunner satellite, also known as TacSat-2.
Roadrunner is the vanguard of an Air Force initiative known as “operationally responsive space.” The idea is to break down the barriers impeding the flow of information between commanders on the ground and spacecraft, and to quickly replace assets damaged in orbit.
The concept made the leap from buzzword to a stated goal this spring when U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Department’s executive agent for space, Air Force undersecretary Ronald Sega, released the “Plan for Operationally Responsive Space.” In May, an office by the same name had a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.
“New approaches to methods, development and acquisition are necessary to attain ORS capabilities …” the plan stated.
The concept will indeed require a substantial overhaul in the way space programs are carried out. Military and spy satellites are expensive, take years to develop and deploy, and don’t enjoy the best reputation on Capitol Hill. The programs are often behind schedule and over budget.
The Chinese military inadvertently gave the ORS program a boost in January when it successfully destroyed one of its own satellites. The anti-satellite test galvanized support in Congress for the concept, said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based think tank.
“I think the Chinese test has refocused a lot of eyeballs on a lot of things in space and one of them is operationally responsive space,” said Hitchens. “I do think Congress is going to be interested in trying to push the Air Force forward with some of these concepts.”
The plan calls for a three-tiered approach to respond to the needs of commanders in the field.
Once a need has been established, the ORS office, which is under Stratcom, must check to see if already existing space-based assets can provide the required service in either minutes or within a few days.
If an existing satellite is knocked out for some reason, the second tier allows for the office to launch a replacement within days or weeks.
This response calls for rapid construction of small satellites, rapid launch and rapid in orbit check-out. The key word is “rapid” — a major shift in the way the U.S. military has deployed space-based assets. Building and launching spacecraft currently takes years, not days or weeks.
Tier-3 comes into play when no existing tier-1 or tier-2 alternative is handy. That calls for the rapid development and deployment of a space-based asset within “months to one year” of the request.
These on-demand satellites are merely meant to augment or temporarily replace big systems. So they may not have all the capabilities of the more complex spacecraft — but they should have enough survivability and operational features to serve as stopgaps. They must use existing ground stations and other communications infrastructures. And because of their short lifespan — one year as opposed to six or more for larger satellites — they do not need to carry as much fuel or need to be as “hardened” for the harsh space environment, proponents of the plan have said.
Joseph Rouge, associate director of the national security space office, said it’s wrong to assume that operationally responsive space is all about small satellites. The bulk of the requests should leverage existing space capabilities as spelled out in tier-1. “How do I use the systems I have today in a more responsive manner?”
“Operationally responsive space” is not just about small satellites, Rouge said at an industry conference earlier this year. “No it’s not. The new ingredient is ‘how do we employ our space systems more effectively?’”
For example, if a commander needs imagery of an area, he should be able to receive the photo directly without it being filtered through a layer of analysts.
Roadrunner is perhaps an extreme example of a commander actually controlling a spacecraft.
The TacSat program is designed to test some of these on-demand capabilities.
The Air Force Research Laboratory project Roadrunner, or TacSat-2, is being used in a number of operational experiments to see how commanders might use on-demand imagery, said Robert Morris, acting chief scientist at the lab’s space vehicles directorate.
An imager on board capable of identifying objects one-meter in size or larger sends its pictures directly to a common terminal on the battlefield. The image can be sent via the Air Force satellite control network, the joint interoperability test command’s common data link or UHF channels. The system does not require the field commanders to have a ground-to-space link or equipment.
There are “a lot of pipes to the ground,” Morris said at the National Defense Industrial Association science and technology conference. “We have lots of possibilities for experiments.”
TacSat-1, which is expected to be launched later this year, was foremost an acquisition experiment. The Naval Research Laboratory’s challenge was to build the satellite within one year for under $10 million and launch it for under $10 million. The lab achieved its cost-cutting goal by using spare parts, commercial technology, and by not adding requirements during the development process, according to a Government Accountability Office report.
TacSat-2, for example, cost $63 million to develop and launch.
TacSat-1, if successfully launched, will attempt spacecraft-to-aircraft communication links and tie the satellite to the SIPRNET, the military’s secure Internet portal. It will also carry several cameras including an infrared imager that does not require cryogenic cooling. The lab hopes the new camera, built by the Army night vision laboratory, will reduce the size, weight and power demands of the component, an NRL fact sheet said.
Tier-2 of the ORS plan calls for satellites to be assembled and launched quickly.
The Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland has been experimenting with “plug-and-play” satellites, said Morris.
Once a combatant commander identifies a need, or a larger satellite is wiped out by an enemy attack or a solar flare, the requirements are entered into a software toolkit. For example, if a communication satellite is needed in low-Earth orbit to fly on an equatorial path, the software returns a list of components needed — a star-tracker, propulsion module, power system and communications payload. Engineers pull the components off the shelf, assemble them with so-called plug-and-play ports and integrate them within two hours onto one of three frames — small, medium or large — designated by the software.
It’s then rapidly integrated onto a launch vehicle, sent into space, then quickly checked out on orbit.
“And away you go with your tactical operations,” said Morris.
“What we need to do next is to actually fly one,” he added.
And that is where the operationally responsive space plan to rapidly deploy satellites stumbles, critics have said.
The U.S. government and the space industry have been looking for less expensive, faster and easier ways to send satellites into space for decades.
“For 20 years, we’ve been trying to cut the cost of launch to space in half, and that’s not happened,” said Hitchens.
The GAO remains one of the harshest critics of military space programs, and noted in a 2006 report that the Defense Department “has yet to develop a low-cost, small launch vehicle available to quickly put tactical satellites … into orbit.”
TacSat-1 is slated to be launched by SpaceX, a startup created by Elon Musk, a billionaire entrepreneur who founded the Internet payment service PayPal. The company’s Falcon rocket is still in its development phase, but has completed two test launches. (See related story.)
The Defense Department has three small launchers in its inventory — the Pegasus, Taurus and Minotaur. When they were introduced in the 1990s, the business plan assumed commercial and other government payloads would keep their per-launch costs down, GAO said. The anticipated market never materialized and kept their costs at about $16 million to $33 million each.
Where to base these plug-and-play satellites is another conundrum. SpaceX’s first attempt to launch TacSat-1 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California was scrapped because of concerns that it would risk crashing into a billion-dollar satellite sitting on a nearby launch pad, SpaceX said in statements on its website. It has now been more than three years since the Navy delivered the satellite. Requirements called for the launch to be done for under $10 million. SpaceX received the contract for $7 million, but delays have tacked on an additional $2 million, GAO said.
The incident points to the fact that booking time on military or NASA launch facilities is a complex process and doesn’t happen overnight. The cumbersome safety precautions and crowded manifests are not conducive to space-on-demand concepts, GAO said. SpaceX moved its TacSat-1 launch to an Army base at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The Air Force is exploring Kodiak Island, Alaska, as another possible ORS spaceport. TacSat-2 lifted off on a Minotaur I rocket from NASA’s Wallops Space Flight Center in Virginia.
AirLaunch LLC, another private start-up, has a concept to launch small satellites from the back of a C-17 transport aircraft, which could solve the crowded spaceport problem. Both SpaceX and AirLaunch have received funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop their vehicles.
Hitchens said the military has a role to play by encouraging space entrepreneurs to design the low-cost launch vehicle it has been striving for. The military’s annual space budget is about $25 billion. The National Reconnaissance Office’s classified budget is believed to be about the same amount.
“Government is going to have to chip in something,” to encourage the space entrepreneurs, she said. A robust commercial market that would help lower the cost for the military is unlikely to develop, she added. “If we’re spending around $50 billion a year on space, you would think you could find a couple hundred million to invest in low cost” rockets, Hitchens said.
The big contractors, Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., are not motivated to come up with low-cost launch alternatives, she noted. What’s in it for them? Low costs mean low profits, she noted.
Overall, GAO sounded an optimistic note on the prospects for operationally responsive space.
The small satellites can augment large, expensive satellites that falter. In addition, the drive for a low-cost launch vehicle will have ripple effects in the space community by allowing frequent flights that test new technologies in a space environment. This can reduce the risk and development costs of larger programs.
ORS will also encourage small innovative companies to compete for Defense Department contracts thereby increasing competition and broadening the space industrial base.
Programs such as TacSat will also give a new generation of space professionals the opportunity to manage small-scale programs, which may better prepare them for larger, more complex systems.
All this may lower the cost and shorten the schedules of the “big space” programs, which would be welcome news to critics on Capitol Hill.
Morris said, “The old paradigm of spending a few billion dollars and taking 10 or 20 years to get a satellite is probably not the right [one] if we’re going to be responsive.”
Meanwhile, space companies large and small are coming out of the woodwork to tout their program as “operationally responsive,” Hitchens said. That usually follows when a concept receives broad political support, she noted.
“Every program manager and every company wants to get a piece of whatever funding comes down the road,” she said.
Please email your comments to SMagnuson@ndia.org
Back To Top
|
Search Tips
