Hybrid Propellant Module HPM Commercialization Study Final FY01 Presentation November 6, 2001

1
Hybrid Propellant Module (HPM) Commercialization
StudyFinal FY01 PresentationNovember 6, 2001

• Doug Blue
• [phone]
• Dave Carey
• [phone]
• Rudy Saucillo
• [phone]

2
Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Projected Satellites/Constellations
• HPM Performance Analyses
• Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) Support
• Geostationary Orbit (GEO) Support
• Integrated HPM Traffic Model
• HPM Economic Viability Analysis
• Operations and Technology Assessment
• Summary

3
Introduction
4
HPM Commercialization Study Overview

• Objective
• Assess the HPMs potential applicability and
  benefits for Earths Neighborhood commercial and
  military space missions in the 2015 timeframe
• Determine common technology development areas
  important to commercial/military/HPM systems

• Goals
• Determine key areas of need for projected
  commercial/military missions that HPM may support
  (e.g., deployment, refueling/servicing,
  retrieval/disposal)
• Quantify the levels of potential HPM commercial
  utilization and develop ROM estimates for the
  resulting economic impacts
• Determine common technology development areas to
  leverage NASA research spinoffs/technology
  transfers and identify potential cost savings
  initiatives
• Study Drivers
• Projected commercial/military satellite market
• HPM design (sizing, performance)
• HPM allocation to support identified markets (HPM
  traffic models)
• ETO transportation costs (trades vs. non-HPM
  architectures, cost of HPM resupply propellant)

5
Key Assumptions

• Commercial scenarios utilize HPM modules as
  defined for Exploration missionsusing
  performance masses
• A low cost Earth-to-LEO transportation capability
  is required

• Low cost, high reliability RLV or ELV for
  satellite launch (sensitive, expensive cargo),
  and possibly a
• Low cost, potentially lower reliability ELV for
  launch of HPM resupply propellant (insensitive
  cargo)
• Cost per kg goals are assessed as part of the HPM
  Economic Viability Analysis
• Industry adopts common infrastructure - attach
  fittings, refueling ports, plug-and-play
  avionics, other required I/Fs
• Goal is to maximize potential HPM commercial
  opportunities (i.e., greatest number of
  satellites deployed/serviced with minimum number
  of required HPMs)

6
HPM Commercialization StudyMethodology
7
References for Commercial Satellite Traffic
Models and Military Analogs

• Futron Corporation. Trends in Space Commerce
  March 2001.
• Provides trends for major space industry segments
  through 2020
• Based on survey polls of 700 global aerospace
  companies
• Federal Aviation Administration. 2001
  Commercial Space Transportation Projections for
  Non-geosynchronous Orbits (NGSO) May 2001.
  referred to as the Comstac Study
• Projects launch demand for commercial space
  systems through 2010
• Based on survey of 90 industry organizations
• Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
  (CSBA). The Military Use of Space A Diagnostic
  Assessment February 2001.
• Assessment of the evolving capabilities of
  nations and other actors to exploit near-Earth
  space for military purposes over the next 20-25
  years.
• Based on interviews with key military personnel
  and web site research
• Review of numerous Web sites
• Provided satellite constellation detail

8
Additional References

• AIAA International Reference Guide to Space
  Launch Systems 1999.
• Information on current launch costs
• Research and Development in CONUS Labs (RaDiCL)
  Data Base 1999.
• Military laboratory technology initiatives
• NASA Technology Inventory Data Base 2001.
• NASA funded technology activities
• Technology Planning Briefing, Boeing Space and
  Communications, June 2001.
• Summary of Boeings IRAD programs to enable
  technologies
• Interviews with Boeing personnel
• Orbital Express Program (DARPA) to identify
  additional military analogs
• 3rd Generation RLV Enterprise use of HPM or
  similar element in overall transportation
  architecture

9
Projected Satellites/Constellations
10
Commercial Satellite Market Trends -Futron Study

11
Commercial Satellite Market Trends -Comstac
Study
12
Satellite Market Forecast

• Commercial
• NGSO market estimates fluctuating, trends
  volatile
• GEO launch demand fairly constant ( gt30/year)
• Spacecraft mass growth continues - especially
  heavies ( gt5,445 kg)
• Spacecraft trend toward electric propulsion
• Commercial launch demand trends
• Consolidation of spacecraft manufacturers/owners
• Increasing on-orbit lifetime
• Business conservatism for financing projects
• Military
• Military applications difficult to identify
  programs under definition
• Trend toward greater value and functionality per
  satellite unit mass initial picosatellite
  experiments have been completed
• AF Science Advisory Board distributed
  constellations of smaller satellites offer better
  prospects for global, real-time coverage and
  advantages in scaling, performance, cost, and
  survivability
• Potential for very large antenna arrays for
  optical and radio-frequency imaging utilizing
  advanced structures and materials technologies

13
Current NGSO Commercial Constellation Summary
14
Current NGSO Military Constellation Summary

• Commercial/Military parameter summary
• Total constellation count 39
• Altitude range gt 556 to 2,800 km
• Except for GPS (20,200 km), New ICO (10,390 km),
  Rostelesat (10,360 km), 3 elliptical
  constellations
• Inclination range gt 45 to 117 degrees
• Except for ECCO, ECO-8, and Ellipso (part) all at
  0 degrees
• Orbit planes gt 1 to 8
• Data available for 27 constellations for HPM
  traffic model analysis

15
Current Distribution of GEO Satellites

• Satellite count 279
• Co-located satellites offset by 2 degree
  latitude increments for display
• Source data www.lyngsat.com

16
HPM Commercial SatelliteDeploy Scenario
Satellite Operational Orbit (or Geostationary
Transfer Orbit)
(3) HPM/CTM perform rendezvous/docking and
maneuver to satellite operational orbit
400 KM HPM Parking Orbit
(4) HPM/CTM deploy satellite in operational orbit
and return to parking orbit
(1) ELV launches HPM resupply propellant HPM/CTM
perform rendezvous/dock and refueling operations
(2) RLV launches and deploys one or more
satellites to LEO
(5) HPM/CTM complete maneuver to parking orbit
17
HPM Commercial SatelliteServicing/Refueling
Scenario
Satellite Operational Orbit
(3) HPM/CTM perform LEO rendezvous/docking and
maneuver to satellite operational orbit
400 KM HPM Parking Orbit
(4) HPM/CTM refuel and/or refurbish satellite and
return to parking orbit
(1) ELV launches HPM resupply propellant HPM/CTM
perform rendezvous/dock and refueling operations
(2) RLV or ELV launches and deploys to LEO
satellite propellant and/or refurbish components
(5) HPM/CTM complete maneuver to parking orbit
18
HPM Military Applications

• HPM could provide next generation, follow-on
  capabilities (transportation) initially provided
  by the DARPA Orbital Express Space Operations
  Architecture Program
• Orbital Express will develop and demonstrate
  robotic techniques for satellite
• Preplanned electronics upgrade
• Refueling
• Repositioning
• Reconfiguration
• OE potentially may support a broad range of
  future US national security and commercial space
  programs
• Mission enabling
• Cost reduction through spacecraft life extension
• OE incorporates industry standard
  non-proprietary satellite-to-satellite electrical
  and mechanical interfaces
• Demonstration of Orbital Express spacecraft
  planned for launch in CY2004

19
HPM Performance Analyses
20
HPM Block II Payload/Velocity Speed
Curves (Utilizing a Single HPM Per Mission)
21
HPM Block II Performance Capability vs.
Representative Spacecraft
22
HPM Block II Initial Performance Assessment

• GEO deploy/servicing missions
• GEO direct deployment/servicing using chemical
  propulsion is not feasible
• HPM Block II no payload capability is about 3/4
  of the round trip DV requirement of 4,195 mps
• GTO deployment missions (DV 2,407 mps) using
  chemical propulsion appear feasible for
  satellites up to 19,000 kg
• GEO direct deployment/servicing from equatorial
  launch site and using electric propulsion is
  possible although potentially not operationally
  viable
• Equatorial launch site is required since orbit
  plane changes are very difficult using SEP
• SEP usage increases trip time significantly
  results in reduced mission rate
• Frequent SEP engine and PV cell refurbishment is
  costly
• NGSO servicing missions
• Considerable payload margin exists for LEO
  satellite direct deployment/servicing
• MEO/HEO direct deployment/servicing using
  chemical propulsion is not feasible (e.g., GPS DV
  3,400 mps)
• MEO/HEO deployment is feasible with chemical
  propulsion via transfer orbit only

23
Satellite Orbit Transfer Definitions
24
Analysis Assumptions

• Market
• Future NGSO constellations will exist in similar
  orbits as recently envisioned
• Launch Vehicle
• Delivers payloads to 400 km circular parking
  orbits at inclination (inc) and right ascension
  (RA) of stored HPM closest to final orbit
• HPM
• HPM chemical engine applies DV impulsively at
  locally optimal orbit locations
• Perigee and Apogee (i.e., Hohmann transfers) for
  altitude variation
• Node crossings for inclination changes
• Nodal complement locations for right ascension
  changes
• A propellant reserve provides 150 mps velocity
  reserve for maneuvers (e.g., rendezvous,
  proximity operations and docking, reboost in
  storage orbits, etc)
• SEP
• Not considered in analyses due to mission
  duration impact and refurbishment costs
• CTM
• Propellant is available to autonomously
  pre-position to HPM rendezvous point as necessary
• Satellite
• Satellite battery life available for 2 days
  autonomous operation between LEO delivery and HPM
  docking and mission completion - Boeing
  Satellite Systems concurs

25
HPM Performance Analyses Non-Geostationary
Orbit (NGSO) Support
26
NGSO Constellation Orbital Distribution
27
HPM Capability Analysis
28
NGSO Analysis Worst Case Results
29
NGSO Analysis Best Case Results
30
Additional Block I NGSO Analysis
Modifications/additions needed to HPM Block I
constellations to provide the same coverage as
higher performing Block II HPM constellations
31
NGSO Analysis Differential RA Summary -
Commercial Constellations
Indicates most applicable HPM deploy/servicing
constellation
32
NGSO Analysis Differential RA Summary - Military
Constellations
33
NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane
Count (Block II)
34
NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs HPM Plane
Count (Block II)
35
NGSO Average Mission Phase Time (Block II)
36
NGSO Traffic Model Conclusions (Block II)

• HPM Constellation Allocation
• Most of the current suite of commercial/military
  constellations are deployable/serviceable using
  HPM/CTM Block II
• Requires one constellation of 8 HPM/CTMs near
  ISS inclination
• Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near
  polar inclination
• Planar launch window opportunities within 30
  days
• Near ISS constellations better accessed from 54
  deg vs 51.6 deg inclination parking orbit
• Near Polar constellations equally accessible from
  inclinations between 90 and 98 deg parking orbits
• Equatorial constellations may be accessed by
  equatorially based HPM/CTMs for GEO missions
• HPM Block II Nominal Traffic Model for 18 total
  HPM/CTMs

• For GPS deploy/servicing, single HPM/CTM can
  deliver GPS to transfer orbit only (400 x 20,200
  km _at_ i55o)
• Full GPS analysis included as part of GEO
  Support section

37
NGSO Traffic Model Conclusions (Block I)

• HPM Constellation Allocation
• Most of the current suite of commercial/military
  constellations are deployable/serviceable using
  HPM/CTM Block I
• Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near
  ISS inclination (inc 51 deg)
• Requires one constellation of 4 HPM/CTMs for mid
  inclinations (inc 59 deg)
• Requires one constellation of 10 HPM/CTMs near
  polar inclination (inc 90.3 deg)
• Planar launch window opportunities within 30
  days
• Equatorial constellations may be
  deployed/serviced by equatorially based HPM/CTMs
  for GEO missions
• HPM Block II Nominal Traffic Model for 24 total
  HPM/CTMs

• For GPS deploy/servicing - single HPM/CTM can
  deliver GPS to transfer orbit only (400 x 20,200
  km _at_ i55o)
• Full GPS analysis included as part of GEO
  Support section

38
HPM Performance Analyses Geostationary Orbit
(GEO) Support
39
GEO/GPS Performance Analysis - Block I and II
Definitions

• Single HPM/CTM
• Paired Two fully loaded HPM/CTM, outbound
  separately, one with payload / one without,
  returning together using total remaining
  propellant
  
• Tandem Multiple HPMs (up to 4) with one CTM
  docked end to end with propellant flow-through
  from one HPM to the next one in stack
  
• Paired/Tandem Two sets of two tandem HPMs, each
  with a single CTM operating as defined above for
  Paired

Assumptions

• Same as defined for NGSO analysis, plus
• Tandem HPM dry weights increased by 10 to
  account for flow-through propellant feed system

40
GEO/GPS Performance Summary
41
GEO/GPS Operational Conclusions

• Performance
• Single Block I or Block II vehicles are only
  capable of performing GTO and GPS transfer
  missions
• None of the configurations studied can deliver
  payloads to GEO from 28 deg
• Only Block II tandem configurations have useful
  payload capability for either GEO (equatorial
  launch) or GPS (51.6 deg launch) missions
• The use of 3 or more HPMs in tandem (required for
  equatorial GEO) should be considered
  operationally problematical at best
• Tandem configurations out perform Paired
  configurations, for equal numbers of HPMs
• The currently envisioned HPM configurations are
  undersized propellant-wise for GEO missions and
  also suffer from the extra dry weight associated
  with SEP accommodations
• Traffic Model
• Two Block I or II HPM/CTMs delivering up to 15
  payloads/year to GTO cover the forecasted 30 GEO
  payloads per year
• GPS transfer orbit traffic is included in the
  NGSO traffic model

42
Integrated HPM Traffic Model
43
HPM/CTM Integrated Traffic Model (Block II)

• NGSO Near ISS Constellation Support - 8 HPM/CTMs
• Average mission rate of 1 every 11 days lt one
  per 12.2 weeks for each HPM/CTM (4 per
  year/HPM)
• Planar launch windows every 4.5 days (average)
  for nodal alignment (Does not impact mission
  rate)
• Launches from Eastern Test Range
• NGSO Near Polar Constellation Support - 10
  HPM/CTMs
• Average mission rate of 1 every 11 days lt one
  per 16.3 weeks for each HPM/CTM (3 per year/HPM)
• Planar launch windows every 8.4 days (average)
  for nodal alignment (Does not impact mission
  rate)
• Launches from Vandenburg Air Force Base
• GEO Constellation Support - 2 HPM/CTMs
• Average mission rate of 1 every 12 days lt 15
  per year for each HPM/CTM
• Launch on demand from Eastern Test Range
• NASA Exploration (Lunar Gateway) Support 7 HPMs
• 7 HPMs, 6 SEP Stages, 1-2 CTMs and CTVs
• 1 lunar excursion every 6 months
• Launch from Eastern Test Range
• Total 27 HPMs, 21-22 CTMs, 1-2 CTVs

Note Traffic Model based on average satellite
lifetime of 7.5 years.
44
OASIS Integrated Traffic Model (Block II)
Traffic model variation is based on satellite
lifetime extremes
Lifetime Estimates 5 years 10
years

• Refined commercial traffic model based on
• Higher usage rate missions only (gt 3 flights per
  HPM per year)
• Single launch site from ETR to eliminate
  duplication of ground infrastructure (excludes
  polar servicing)
• 50 market share (of high traffic model)

45
Total Block II HPM/CTM Annual Propellant
Requirement
46
HPM Economic Viability Analysis
47
OASIS Economic Viability Analysis Overview

• Objective
• Provide a preliminary economic viability
  assessment of HPM/CTM in future commercial
  satellite deployment/servicing markets as defined
  by the integrated traffic model
• Approach
• Compare potential life cycle earnings over range
  of critical economic factors
• Identify economic factors with strong influence
  on earnings
• Determine the economic sensitivity and establish
  hurdle values for these critical factors
• Earning levels necessary for economic viability
  include allowance for non-recurring start up
  costs
• Start up costs per HPM/CTM include HPM/CTM
  procurement (ROM estimate 150 million each),
  and initial launch, development and deployment of
  commercial peculiar infrastructure (e.g., HPM
  propellant processing facilities)
• Start up costs per HPM/CTM assumed not to exceed
  500 million actual value varies inversely with
  fleet size
• Industry leverages government investment in
  infrastructure development

48
Identification of Critical Economic Factors

• Critical Economic Factors
• Charge to deploy satellite to operational orbit
• Propellant delivery cost to LEO ( per kg)
• Payload (satellite) cost ( per kg) to LEO
• HPM/CTM use rate
• Life cycle earnings

• Ch
• Prop
• P/L
• R

• Definition
• Total charge to customer to deploy their
  satellite
• Establishes cost to resupply HPM with full load
  (32,000 kg) of propellant per deployment
• 5,000 kg payload, calculated at twice the /kg
  as propellant
• HPM/CTM flights per year (based on traffic model
  analysis)
• LCE Ch - (Prop P/L)R10 year HPM/CTM life

49
Economic Sensitivity to Satellite Deployment Cost

• Range of deployment charges was selected to
  represent a substantial reduction over current
  launch costs for similar sized satellites
• Area of economic viability defined by positive
  life cycle earnings with allowance for non-
  recurring start-up costs
• Propellant delivery costs must be less than 600
  to 1,600 per kg over range of charges for
  satellite deployment

50
Rational for Selection of Parametric Satellite
Deployment Costs

• 70 million upper value of the range offers 15
  to 30 million dollar cost advantage over an
  existing launch vehicle capable of deploying
  5,000 kg to GTO (i.e., Delta IV medium 4,2)
• 50 million nominal value is competitive, cost
  wise, with a Delta III class vehicle, but offers
  substantially greater payload capability to GTO,
  or multi payloads to lower energy orbits
• 30 million minimum deployment cost represents a
  highly competitive option which can deploy Delta
  IV medium 4,2 class payloads for less than the
  cost of a Delta II

51
Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate

• Range of use rates was established by the HPM
  integrated traffic model (flight rates of less
  than 6/yr produce poor economics at this
  deployment charge)
• Area of economic viability defined by positive
  life cycle earnings with allowance for non-
  recurring start-up costs
• Propellant delivery costs must be less than 300
  to 600 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates
  for this minimal satellite deployment charge

52
Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate

• Range of use rates established by the HPM
  integrated traffic model (flight rates of less
  than 3/yr produce poor economics at this
  deployment charge)
• Area of economic viability defined by positive
  life cycle earnings with allowance for non-
  recurring start-up costs
• Propellant delivery costs must be less than 700
  to 1,100 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use rates
  for this nominal satellite deployment charge

53
Economic Sensitivity to Flight Rate

• Range of use rates established by the HPM
  integrated traffic model (flight rates of less
  than 3/yr produce minimal economics at this
  deployment charge)
• Area of economic viability defined by positive
  life cycle earnings with allowance for non-
  recurring start-up costs
• Propellant delivery costs must be less than
  1,300 to 1,600 per kg over range of HPM/CTM use
  rates for this maximum considered satellite
  deployment charge

54
HPM Economic Viability Analysis Conclusions

• Government (NASA or DOD) provides OASIS element
  DDTE funding. Industry will leverage government
  investment in infrastructure development.
• Enough lifecycle revenue to
• Cover start-up costs including HPM/CTM
  procurement/launch, and development and
  deployment of commercial peculiar infrastructure
  (e.g., HPM propellant processing facilities).
  These start-up costs are estimated to be as much
  as 0.5 billion per HPM/CTM.
• Provide the desired commercial return on
  investment.
• Low propellant delivery cost, less than 1,000/kg
  for the nominal 50 million OASIS satellite
  deployment charge.
• HPM use rates greater than 3 flights per year.

55
Operations and Technology Assessment
56
HPM Sized for Direct GEO Servicing 400 km 28
Degree Initial Orbit

• Requirements
• Deliver 5,000 kg to GEO orbit ( one way DV
  4,200 m/sec )
• Return HPM/CTM to 400 km 28 degree orbit
• Assumptions
• Block II technology
• HPM dry weight increased to account for
  additional propellant
• Additional dry mass based on 0.94 propellant tank
  mass fraction
• D propellant / (D propellant D dry
  mass) 0.94
• Results
• Usable propellant increased to 70,513 kg from
  30,826 kg (39,687 kg additional propellant)
• HPM dry mass increased by 2,533 kg to 6,637 from
  4,104 kg

57
Clean Sheet ELV Propellant Delivery
58
Technology Assessment

• Review of 1999 National Reconnaissance Office
  (NRO) database
• Developed by Advanced Systems and Technology
  Directorate
• All studies performed at Air Force Research Lab
  (AFRL)
• Technology studies related to HPM commercial
  usage
• On-board autonomy
• Autonomous Remote Servicing - Automate mechanical
  functions, such as supply, maintenance and
  inspection, on on-orbit spacecraft. These
  functions extend the life of spacecraft without
  requiring the tremendous expense of manned repair
  missions, restriction to STS reachable orbits, or
  extensive redundant components.
• Mission data processing and exploitation
• Space simulation framework - Reduce development
  and ops risk and cost of designing, building,
  testing, launching and operating satellites
• Command and Control
• Multi-mission Advanced Ground Intelligent Control
  - Support operational concepts of reducing skill
  levels and number of operators, reducing training
  time, enabling operators skilled in multiple
  satellite operations, and providing these
  capabilities at a greatly decreased acquisition,
  operations, and maintenance cost
• Advanced Astrodynamics Development and Analysis -
  Develop quantitative methods to assess risk of
  collision, development of techniques to optimize
  spacecraft maneuvers, and develop methods for
  autonomous constellation operations.

59
Summary
60
Principal Results and Conclusions

• HPM Commercial Traffic Models
• HPM commercial traffic models have been developed
  based on satellite delivery considered the
  floor for potential HPM commercial applications
• Future DoD missions may provide additional HPM
  applications/usage rates
• HPM Economic Viability
• HPM/CTM has commercial potential when used as an
  orbital transfer stage in conjunction with a low
  cost booster to LEO
• HPM commercial viability is highly sensitive to
  infrastructure costs, mission rates and
  Earth-to-LEO launch costs
• Single site for HPM propellant launch is highly
  desirable to minimize ground infrastructure costs
• Required HPM propellant launch costs are
  consistent with NASA DPT requirements for
  insensitive cargo
• Required costs for satellite launch to LEO are
  consistent with SLI 2nd Generation RLV goals for
  sensitive cargo

61
FY02 Activities

• Follow-on activities under RASC have been
  proposed for FY02
• Refinement of potential HPM commercial and
  military applications
• Life cycle cost assessment of HPM for commercial
  and exploration applications
• Clean sheet analysis of a very low-cost
  commercial expendable launch vehicle (ELV)
  designed to support HPM on-orbit propellant
  re-supply
• Continued identification of HPM commercial
  applications-specific technology requirements and
  technology candidates

62
Acronym List
63
References
World Space Systems Briefing, the Teal Group,
Fairfax, Va., presented during the IAF 52nd
International Astronautical Congress in Toulouse,
France, dated October 2, 2001. Trends in Space
Commerce, Futron Corporation, dated March,
2001. 2001 Commercial Space Transportation
Projections for Non-geosynchronous Orbits (NGSO),
Federal Aviation Administration, dated May,
2001. The Military Use of Space A Diagnostic
Assessment, Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment, dated February, 2001. AIAA
International Reference Guide to Space Launch
Systems, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, dated 1999. Research and
Development in CONUS Labs (RaDiCL) Data Base,
National Reconnaissance Office, dated 1999. NASA
Technology Inventory Database, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, maintained
on-line. Technology Planning Briefing, Boeing
Space and Communications Group, dated June,
2001. Roy A. E., The Foundations of
Astrodynamics, MacMillan Company, dated 1965.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
64
Backup
65
HPM Block I Payload/Velocity Speed
Curves (Utilizing a Single HPM Per Mission)
HPM System Capability
HPM/CTM Block I Performance
Deploy P/L (all electric)
100,000
Retrieve P/L (all electric)
Deploy P/L (all chemical)
Required Impulsive
D
V's
Retrieve P/L (all chemical)
from 400 km circular
80,000
parking orbit (27deg inc)
P/L chem out HPM elec in (hybrid stage)
60,000
Payload (kgs)
40,000
GTO
GPS
GEO
GEO No Plane Change
20,000
Required electric
D
V
from equatorial 400 km
circular to GEO
0
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Payload Delivery Delta Velocity (mps)
Ref LaRC speed curves
Round trip D V 2payload delivery
66
HPM Block I Performance Capability vs.
Representative Spacecraft
KH-12
KH-11
Trumpet
New ICO
Iridium
67
Additional NGSO Mission Launch Opportunities vs
HPM Plane Count (Block I)
Block II data for the polar HPM constellation at
90.3o also applies for Block I concept
68
NGSO Average Mission Phase Time (Block I)
Block II data for the polar HPM constellation at
90.3o also applies for Block I concept
69
HPM/CTM Integrated Traffic Model (Block I)
70
Total Block I HPM/CTM Annual Propellant
Requirement