This conference was sponsored -

Document Sample
This conference was sponsored - Powered By Docstoc
                           By Harry Ivey

This conference was sponsored by the Los Angeles and Orange County sections of the AIAA
and held in Los Angeles, California, 3/8–11/10. Attendance, while down, was over 350 people
including a number of senior government executives.

Dr. James Wertz, Microcosm President, kicked off the conference indicating ―We have not
done a good job selling the need for low cost responsive missions or low cost responsive launch
— we have to do better.‖

―We have made progress, but truly low cost, responsive space remains an elusive objective. We
need to do a better job selling the fact that space costs too much and takes too long. ‖

Examples of progress made over the past year included:
      The ORS Office is now fully functioning and has begun to launch satellites.
      TacSat-3 has gained significant attention for the value of information that it provides.
      ORS Sat-1 is scheduled to launch ―late this month‖ (the first responsive satellite driven
       by an ―urgent need‖ as defined by CENTCOM).
      The NRO has bought 12 CubeSat buses under Colony I and plans to buy 50 more under
       Colony II.
      The Army has bought eight small communications satellites (SMDC-1 will be launched
      The Army is in the process of acquiring two different, very low cost observation satellites
       — Kestrel Eye and Nano Eye.

Wertz continued ―Unfortunately, low cost, responsive, Small Sat launch is no where on the
horizon — we have the technology, but no real interest in transforming it into reality. ‖

Wertz asks whether there should be a RS-9. He requested audience feedback during the
conference (and received some). He further stated that from a perspective of 2010, it is clear that
we are unlikely to meet the 2014 launch goal articulated in 2003. It says programmatically there
isn‘t a ―validated need‖ for low cost, responsive, small launch. In terms of technology, we have
been 1.5 to 2.5 years away from dramatically low cost, responsive launch since RS-1 in 2003.

Wertz gave examples such as the Soviets launching 29 payloads in 68 days during the Falklands
War in 1982, but he also says if the Chinese decide to attack Taiwan and destroy our
reconnaissance satellites at the beginning of the attack, we can respond in a great many ways, but
what we cannot do is replace the on-orbit assets in any time less than several years. In his
opinion, however important space assets may be in today‘s world, they aren‘t responsive and that
remains true today.

―As a community, we have found ways to dramatically reduce costs but ha ve been exceptionally
unsuccessful at convincing either NASA or DoD of the need or the capacity of Small Sats to play

a central role.‖ He asserts ―Small Sats can‘t replace traditional satellite systems but can be a
major player in supplementing them and in driving down mission cost.‖ He adds ―There doesn‘t
appear to be a validated need to dramatically reduce cost. ‖"

Wertz quoted Dr. Pete Rustan at RS-3 in April, 2005, ―If we do not transform, we will cease to
be a leader as a space faring nation. It is up to you.‖ At the time Rustan had said ―Use advanced
technology with streamline processes to effect the entire industry. ‖ (not just small satellites). He
observed we need a change of mindset and we need risk management.

Wertz asserts that that is the problem. We must meet end user needs but he observes our
―salesmanship is abysmal.‖ He says we need to quantify and present the merits and demerits of
low cost small satellites and convince the decision makers of the role respons ive small satellites
can play. Wertz observes that we had 20 launches for $60B investment in 2009 for a space
system average of $3B per launch (includes all costs).

Having stated the problem Wertz questioned ―How do we fix it?‖. He says we need to quantify
and present the merits, demerits and limitations of dramatically lower cost, more responsive
space systems and convince the decision making community that low cost Small Sats can play a
major role in resolving the space problems facing the United States today. He says we should be
able to reduce space mission costs by a factor of two to three or more. He asserts that the results
can be a major benefit to the entire space industry. He asserts that as a result of the current
economic crisis, the cost per mission is likely to go strongly up or strongly down (the former
seems more likely). In closing Wertz says the conference should try hard to be responsive to the
needs of the community (some of us thought that the Wertz kick off was throwing a ―wet
blanket‖ over the conference from the start).

RAdm. Sandy Daniels (USNR), Deputy Commander 14th Air Force and JSpOC says the
problem is not selling the need for responsive space and lower cost, but, ―proving it.‖ She then
says that General Chilton says the most important part of the job as a leader is not the mission,
not the people, etc., but to develop your replacement, the leaders, and doers of the future. While
the JFCC Space is a STRATCOM component, it is responsible for DoD space operations, in the
space and cyber domains. She says they don‘t design or build, but they do operate and do plan
and support the warfighter providing command and control, integration and readiness. When not
actually fighting, they train and exercise for the threat of the future.

She asserts that the command has the ―capacity to
    Exploit and infuse space operations;
      Rapidly augment space capabilities — more stuff;
      Rapidly reconstitute and replenish — replace stuff.‖

Daniels says the ORS CONOPS was approved by Gen. Chilton in 2009. Space is integrated into
operations, space is integrated into the economy and our personal lives. She asserts we must
break the one-size- fits-all mentality. We had robust constellations ten years ago with satellites in
the barn to replenish if something was lost on orbit. At that time launch was available on a 30
day call up, but today, there are no spacecraft on the ground, and it takes two years for a launch
call up if there is a problem on orbit.

Daniels says part of this is budget pressure. We are now in the gap management mode.
Responsive space would provide options. ISR is still needed by the warfighter. Persistent ISR
from aircraft is also needed. Space weather is needed. Missile warning improvement is needed.
She says we need to educate the COCOMs which can then become a more demanding customer.
We need faster timelines for decision makers.

Daniels says there is a concern on the survivability of space when needed and therefore, more
emphasis on an airborne backup.

The reasons for responsive space include:
    Rapid exploitation of new technology;
    Augmentation capacity;
    Rapid reconstitution.

In the future Daniels sees operations utility as the focus, not engineering perfection. She asserts
the 80% solution may be sufficient, versus the perfect. We need the capability that is usable
quickly. She says it‘s not all about Small Sats, but designing agility and flexibility in the space

She says cost and shortened timelines are important. We need to collaborate more broadly. She
says sensor technology versus UAVs and non-traditional approaches need emphasis.

She says think architecture — augment and add utility, possibly multi-INT. She perceives this
offers operational value towards getting costs and timelines down. She suggests other appli-
cations, like insurance, may help pay some of the front end costs. She suggests we help show
new ways to use the capabilities and says fresh ideas are desired.

Daniels says this is not an easy challenge. She senses frustration from the Wertz presentation.
She believes that we are on the cusp of proving utility, like UAVs several years ago. She
counsels us to ―don't give up hope. You have the will and the capability make space resilient. ‖

In response to questions, Daniels says in the Congressional testimony by General James, the
percentage of budget was not the issue. Congress is supportive of responsive space and will
respond to warfighter needs. She says it must provide utility for the warfighter.

Daniels says the COCOMs will ask for what they know. Show them the art of the possible. In
response to an Israeli launch vehicle question, she says the delivery of capability is the issue, not
the selection of airborne versus terrestrial launch.

We were told that ORS Sat-1 will have a November, 2010, launch.

Josh Hartman currently in the Center for Strategic Studies, says we are on the cusp of doing
great things, but not at the tipping point. He asserts that the ORSO is addressing warfighter needs
in augmentation and potential replacement. He believes ORS is bringing new life into the space
acquisition system.

Early on there were 27 principal members in the EXCOM chaired by the SECAF, but anyone

saying ―no‖ prevents progress. He believes that STRATCOM interest is higher than was
anticipated and there is COCOM interest. Hartman believes that the Pentagon and some in
industry were skeptical. The level of resources was lower than needed. The enabling strategy
hasn‘t motivated the Pentagon. He perceives we need to frame the discussion to get a put-up-or-
shut-up at the Pentagon. He says there has been no impact on the acquisition system yet. There is
international interest in what the US is doing in responsive space.

Hartman says there is Tier 2 interest in ISR, communications and potentially other missions by
the DoD. He submits there is an industrial base issue in small satellites and suggests that we
leverage the investment on less exquisite solutions.

Hartman suggests framing a multi-satellite system proposal to augment existing capabilities. He
suggests this should be a tactically relevant regional problem. It could be addressing COCOM
unmet needs such as: MILSATCOM, electro-optical, niche, etc. He suggests that unmet needs in
the current architecture (gaps) may offer opportunities. He perceives there are unserved needs
coming from AFRICOM, SOF, etc. He says these are non-exquisite needs and they are not likely
to be in any requirement document. He suggests going directly to the COCOM. He suggests
determine the space contribution and the unique benefit of ORS. He believes that a three to six
satellite maximum in a constellation to be appropriate. He suggests single sensor satellites, but
potentially multi- sensor in a constellation. But, he says, it must fit well into the ground segment
of today‘s architecture.

Hartman says buy- it-and- fly- it. He suggests a block approach (not one or two) perhaps with a
three to five year reliability sweet spot. It should employ standard interfaces. He suggests we
deploy it and demonstrate utility. He believes an assessment would include one to 1-1/2 years for
Hill feedback. He believes that ORS is alive and offers great value, but we must convince the
leadership and the nay-sayers. He says we must push the Pentagon over the top. The current
dollars won‘t lead to success. He suggests that the current $100M needs to grow to $300M, and
it‘s a tough challenge.

In response to questions, Hartman says the COCOMs have to stand up. Leaders are in CAE,
AT&L (Klinger) and JCS J-8 (Cartwright).

We need resources, requirements, and rapid acquisition.

On OPIR (missile warning) he says, outside sources are telling ORS what the system should look
like, versus ORS doing the architecture.

On TacSat-3, critics are saying this is not an ORS satellite but a technology demonstration.

Hartman suggests we get rid of the current acquisition process that doesn‘t work.

The Tier 2 debate is broader than ORS. The focus is replenishment, augmentation, and

Lt. Gen. Tom Sheridan, SMC Commander and PEO Space, says that we are paying attention
to responsive space, but the government doesn‘t change overnight. He is proud of the
environmental monitoring, missile warning, communications, navigation, etc., capabilities that

have been fielded. He reminds us that in the '60s and '70s space was a new adventure. He says
there was learning as we go and lots of folks were involved.

Sheridan says small space is not a panacea. The ORS infrastructure will come in the future. He
reminds us that big space started small with new frontier projects. He talked to STP experimental
satellites in the pipeline where there is a backlog for launch.

Sheridan says the AFRL TEO and the PEO (S heridan) are working together. National Security
Space provides a capability to the warfighter, but it needs to be more responsive. He says we are
in a contested environment now and may need to augment or replace parts of the constellation in
the future.

Success is needed in all three tiers. Tier 1 is to use existing capabilities and he believes there
have been several successes; his example being ISR. He believes the promise will be in data
fusion. He says the SBIRS HEO data is much better quality than expected. Sheridan talked to
CHIRP as ―a pathfinder‖ in merging with a commercial partner as well as to demonstrate sensor

On Tier 2, Sheridan mentions the Minotaur launch vehicle using Minuteman motors, and there
will be others. He mentions specifically the ESPA ring and the Hydrazine Augmentation
Propulsion (HAP).

On Tier 3, he talks to ORS-1 satisfying a CENTCOM need. This will be for ISR with tasking by
the theater forces. A 2010 launch on Minotaur is planned.

Sheridan says we need to focus on operational capability from ORS assets. Standard interfaces
for payloads, launch vehicles and the ground infrastructure are needed. As an example, he lists
the MMSOC as being available for use. He asserts that standardization is not always welcome by
industry since it prevents their proprietary advantages.

Small space is not the answer for everything. We must weigh the capabilities provided in the
―public view.‖ He says that ORS is growing capability slowly. Risk must be weighed. ORS fits
a niche and all areas are being worked.

In response to questions, Sheridan indicates the NRO top three capabilities for the warfighter
from responsive space are:
     Communication augmentation — ORS TacSat-4
      PNT — being met by GPS well today
      ISR augmentation.

On technology insertion, Sheridan says that AFRL is working closely with SMC/XR for plans to
do insertion.

On CubeSat, he says the XR has an RFI out. These are here today and offer better capability with
smaller electronics. He envisions these would be strap on launches. He says we will have a place
in the sun. Demonstrations are being planned now.

There is a budget tradeoff on stockpiling of PnP components. He says the SECAF wants RRSW
and has bought into it but AI&T is tough.

In the Session 1 A — Mission and Systems Engineering, Dr. Rich Van Allen, Microcosm,
introduced Dr. Stuart Eves, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd., (SSTL) with a paper on ―Thinking
at the Constellation Level.‖ Eves says Thinking at the Constellation Level impacts all aspects of
the system:
      Sensor Design,
      Platform Design,
      Orbit Choice,
      Operations,
      Redundancy, etc.

His example is the Disaster Monitoring System encompassing five satellites with 600km ground
swath and sensors with a resolution of 30m. This is apparently the Rapid Eye constellation that
can provide 22m 3 color resolution. It has a roll capability of 45° and can be used for agricultural
monitoring. Rapid Eye is said to have a 6m spatial resolution and a 60 km swath. In operations,
they vary the duty cycle to meet user specific needs.

For orbital considerations he says sun sync satellites are generally considered to provide more
coverage opportunities and launched toward the poles, but this overlooks the long periods during
the winter when lighting conditions are inappropriate for optical imaging. He says designing
constellations with appropriate revisit statistics is vital. Use of propulsion allows spacing.

On inter-satellite communications he says these can be used to cue the spacecraft. It can also be
used to communicate with a GEO bird (BGAN) and redundancy can be accomplished utilizing
multiple satellites in the constellation.

A launch vehicle interface standard allows a selection of severa l launch vehicles depending upon
availability. A direct downlink of data into the theater is also enabled.

Luca del Monte from ESA talked to a European approach to responsive space. He says the
continental approach encompasses both military and civilian capabilities. ESA, including 18
nations and a 3.6B Euro budget, has multiple challenges including SSA, GMES, Galileo, etc. He
says there have been 60 satellites designed and launched. Their planning activity starts from the
service side and the ground system interface.

Europe is sharing imagery from non-European sources, currently 89% from U.S. sources. He
says there is a control issue in a crisis situation. The current approach is aimed at civilian needs.
The global integrated architecture for innovative utilization of space (GAINUS) is intended to
meet crises needs. An example crisis might be a major earthquake or the need to counter piracy
or a ship accident in the Arctic region. He says requirements are established for a resolution and
time limit and they have concluded that a combined aircraft and space capability is needed in the
architecture to be responsive.

Most of his discussion was focused on the organization for responsive space not hardware

solutions or operations.

Barry Witt talked to ResCon: A conceptual architecture for a responsive space constellation.
Some of his payload candidates included: Electro-optic imagery, hyper-spectral imagery
(TacSat-3), theater communications, SIGINT/ELINT, and SAR products (using the CDL for the

He envisions a versatile bus using a multimission modular spacecraft. It would have plug and
play interfaces and be storable. It would be mass produced and fit within a 1.7 X 4.4 m launch
vehicle faring. He submits this will allow utilization of COTS launches and listed the Minotaur I,
Minotaur IV, Falcon Ie, and Raptor.

In the hardware requirements area, he believes enabling technology for responsive space lift
      A storable launcher kept in a flight ready state;
      Rapid generation of guidance software;
      Autonomous flight safety systems;
      On board metric tracking;
      Space based range systems.

For the constellation he envisions Molniya orbits for SIGINT and communications on the move.
Optimized LEO orbits could be used for imaging missions. On the ground he envisions theater
downlink stations. These would receive warfighter inputs for spacecraft tasking. They would
generate spacecraft tasking commands that would be passed to the MMSOC. The downlink
station would receive data and error messages from the spacecraft and perform payload data
processing. I would provide dissemination of processed data to the warfighter and joint forces

In concluding, he says ResCon leverages recent developments and represents a realistic concept
for an operational ORS constellation. He also perceives this could be used as a gapfiller for an
existing constellation and he perceives that the TacSat 2 and 3 validated technology so its ready
to integrate into an operational system.

Dr. Dino Lorenzini, Space Quest, says the company was founded in 1995 in Fairfax, Virginia,
currently has ten employees and has built 12 microsats as well as avionics for Bigelow
Aerospace. Lorenzini talked to APRIZE Sat 3 and 4 built and owned and operated by Space
Quest. These were launched 7/29/09 on the Russian DNEPR rocket. APRIZE Sat is a 13kg,
25cm cube having 16W average orbit power. He claims ten months from start of spacecraft
construction to launch. APRIZE Sat missions include automatic identification system (AIS)
machine to machine (M2M) and component qualification. Communications is via a S band
gateway and he says APRIZE Sat 3 and 4 are currently collecting high fidelity AIS (marine)
messages worldwide. In response to questions he says there is no propulsion and it uses a passive
GN&C. He did a mass model for the DNEPR fit check and he reminds us that the DNEPR is
based on an operational ICBM and can launch on schedule in any weather.

John Graves, Texas A&M student talked to AGGIE Sat. This is part of the University NanoSat

program. This is a 5" X 5" X 5" cube that had its first flight in 2007 on Shuttle. This is a student
built, low cost system, where the focus is on interfaces and software development. It will fall into
the 50 to 100 kg class spacecraft. AGGIE Sat-4 is in preliminary design (also called
LONESTAR-2) and is to have a GPS navigation, targeting a 2012 delivery. He says they are
working with Lockheed Martin.

In response to questions on PnP hardware, he says their focus is on software versus hardware and
as long as it meets the physical cube volume constraints and 50kg. Although not be part of it
today, future spacecraft may have a deployable array capability.

Dr. Yool Kim talked to a new strategy for operational responsive space. She works for Col.
Gregory Boyett, SAF/A-5.

She says although many views of ORS persist, STRATCOM is focused on:
      Rapid augmentation of existing space capabilities or reconstitution of critical space
      Rapid acquisition of new or modified space capabilities at relatively low cost.

She points to the approaches to implementing the three tiers:
      Tier 1: ―Employ It‖
               – Novel use of on-orbit NSS
               – Allied and commercial systems
      Tier 2: “Launch It / Deploy It”
               – Stored launch vehicles
               – Modular buses and payloads
               – Standards and open architectures
               – Preapprovals
      Tier 3: “develop it”
               – Risk tolerant
               – Waivers and deviations
               – Report directly to EA for Space
               – Responsive space enablers

Overall, she says ORS has had a positive influence on the NSS community and industry. Various
organizations have established initiatives to make space more responsive to the warfighter. She
thinks NSS should take the lead on Tier 1 and include a llied and commercial systems. She says
the lack of validated Tier 2 requirements could lead to funding risks/incompatible solutions. She
submits it will be difficult to acquire funding without the services having a validated need and
top level requirement. She says an AoA may be necessary to assess a range of potential
solutions (e.g. airborne assets) to various mission needs.

She believes that the unique attributes of the ORS Office and well defined requirements could
enable Tier 3 but some institutional/funding challenges still remain.

Toward a new strategy he recommends NSS should consist of ―exquisite systems‖ and smaller
satellites that are in the ―good enough‖ category, as well as allied and commercial systems.

NSS should continue to address many of the issues now under the ORS umbrella, including Tier
1 and acquisition and frequent launch on schedule of Tier 2 systems.

The ORS office should focus on rapidly acquiring Tier 3 systems with external funding, and
developing responsive space enablers within the current budget.

Dr. Rich Van Allen, Microcos m, talked to NANO EYE — militarily relevant surveillance for
less than $5M total recurring mission cost. He says four configurations have been conceived with
preliminary designs completed, two with propulsion and two without. Without propulsion a tech
demo at 9.2kg, 24W $1.1M NRE, or a basic EO — 10kg, ~27W $900K each in lots of ten. With
propulsion an advanced EO — 13.5kg (dry), 42W $1.2M each in lots of ten, or EO/IR — 15.6kg
(dry), 50W, $1.4M each in lots of ten.

On responsiveness, he suggests launch on demand with 3.5 hours from request to imagery return.
He says the advanced EO/IR system can be operational in 18 to 24 months for $5M.

Launch options include the Space X Falcon 1e or the Microcosm Scorpius.

Microcosm has been working with ITT under IR&D funds for the payload said to have a 10"
aperture with a 2.95 kg mass.

In response to questions, we were told that the Microcosm design work has been sponsored by
SMDC under SBIR. The ITT camera is from Fairchild using a 6U pixel size. COTS CubeSat
avionics is planned. A Microcosm composite structure is envisioned. Communications duty
cycle is approximately 10%. We are told the telescope and camera is designed for multiusage
and applications and is somewhat rugged.

Session II Spacecraft Technology 1 was chaired by Jeffrey Puschell, Raytheon.

Captain Lisa Baghal, AFIT, talked to streamlining system level tests for responsive spacecraft:
Results and Lessons Learned from ORS Rapid AI&T Demonstration. She says AI&T represents
two days in the Tier 2 six day call up. PnPSat 1 had six AI&T trials. This activity assumes
qualification of subsystems and components before AI&T is started. There are four phases:
    Plan
    AI&T
    Validation — Thermal- vac and three axis vibration
      Analysis.

They have found that the assembly timeline is most variable due to the sk ill level of the
participants. She acknowledges there are challenges for the Chili Works in meeting these
timelines. In response to questions, she says GlobalStar was looked at as a basis for comparison.
They also looked at Iridium and Orbcomm.

In terms of avoiding mistakes, she strongly recommends automation because it is repeatable.
She further says the skill mix and training of the people will be key. Experience showed that over
engineering could spell trouble.

Dr. Jordi Puig-Suari, Cal Poly, talked to a CubeSat approach for standardization.

As background, he reminds us that CubeSat was started in 1999 by Stanford and Cal Poly. There
have been 44 launched and there are 28 CubeSats currently in orbit. Over time they have been
increasing in performance and performing multiple missio ns.

He submits that a responsive spacecraft and responsive launch vehicle including
    Quick reaction
    Need range access
    Unconventional and high development cost.

He says that CubeSat can deliver spacecraft without having a launch determined because the
standards are established and prefabrication is feasible. He talks to the NRO Colony 1 with
multiple CubeSats as an example. He says they have a high risk tolerance and can offer quick

Because they are standardized, it allows the shift between launch vehicles based on availability.
Integration time can be weeks or less. He says this is a secondary responsive path with CubeSat
as an enabler. CubeSats in a university environment are providing learning opportunities but they
are also becoming mission capable.

Part of the vision is a CubeSat access to every launch vehicle with a minimum integration lead
time. There will be a CubeSat workshop in San Luis Obispo 4/21–22/10.

Edmond Burke, Space Information Laboratory (SIL) talked to the Lithium PnP Lego battery.
SIL battery technology is the Lithium Polymer. 4.2vdc cell dimensions are 4" X 4" X .16 high.
Since it has solid polymer there is no electrolyte leakage. It works in a space vacuum. Teflon
wires soldered directly to the tabs, no well joints. He claims it‘s flown successfully on several
CubeSats with good performance and also on AFRL small sat missions. Temperature range is
said to be –20 to +60° C and packed configurations can be 12.6, 16.8, or 33.6 vdc. Over and
under voltage protection is provided as well as over and under current protection.

In response to questions he says the radiation issue is electronics not the battery cell. The
Lithium Polymer apparently was developed by a DoE laboratory. 300 Whr/kg current is a
possible, but with sacrifices in the number of cycles. He didn‘t answer the depth of discharge
question. He says recharge from dead to a charged cell is less than an hour.

Jo Bermyn, Verhaert Space talked to an advanced data and power management system.
Verhaert is a QinetiQ company based in Belgium. They are a principal provider of light sat
satellites for ESA. The ADPMS system was flown on PROBA-I. A 20% reduction is expected in
mass when they fly PROBA-II. A good part of the paper was presented on his functional
partitioning to achieve the redundancy required as well as flexibility. Apparently Leon I and II
(implemented in ACTEL RTAX2000 FPGA) utilizing PCI packaging achieved a mass of 13kg
with a power consumption of 17W.

Missions under development include a PROBA-III for a formation flying mission, and a
PROBA-V as an ESA vegetation remote sensing mission.

Dr. Tom Cooley and Lt. Col. Ron Pendleton presented TacSat-3/Artemis demonstration and
follow on use. From the beginning there have been lots of partners including Army, ONR,
NASA, Air Force, etc. TacSat-3 was the first of the TacSat series to go through a formal
selection process in which over 50 ―white papers‖ were submitted from the services and
COCOMs. The HSI payload was selected with primary Army support. This was to be a one- year
operational life, low cost, HSI using a modular spacecraft bus. Other payloads on TacSat-3
included the ONR UHF radio exfiltration and the PnP satellite avionics experiment (SAE). The
competition was held and the ATK bus was selected along with the Raytheon HSI payload. An
OSC launch occurred at Wallops in May, 2009.

To achieve a low cost, the sensor requirements had both goals and thresholds. A ―best effort,‖
versus build to specs, was used drawing from previous airborne payload experience. Risk was
mitigated with limited testing and the use of best practices and an independent I&T team.

Col. Pendleton of AFSPC says the follow on capability team has been formed and that the HSI
has been used for operations already. He says it may go to full use in May, 2010. ―All systems
are go.‖ This delivers tactical ISR information direct to the COCOM around the globe. He says
the on orbit spectral analyzer has had great benefit and has been used as a pathfinder for ORS-1.
He presented a notional STRATCOM owned space based ISR architecture showing tasking and
telemetry via the AFSCN but downlinking of data directly to ground stations for exfiltration.
Mission planning would be done in conjunction with the Army SMDC. He submits that the
TacSat CONOPS breaks old paradigms and gives COCOMs responsive, dedicated space
capabilities at the operational and tactical level. He believes they are breaking new ground and
setting the stage for the future. Numerous benefits to a transitioned operations include:
      Warfighter support
      Organizational learning
      Preparation for ORS-1
      Looking toward the future in US space operations.

In response to questions, we are told that the architecture is different for the end user in
operations. Principal users may be both strategic and national.

The cost of TacSat-3 at $60M included satellite, payload, AI&T plus $25M for the launch
vehicle. We are told that the $200M for ORS-1 includes the launch vehicle and operations cost.

In the demonstration, we are told that the ground users are contacted via STRATCOM. Ocean
color applications, including Navy littoral have been addressed. Mass grave signatures was also
an apparent area of interest.

The warfighter panel was moderated by Lt. Col. David W. Smith from the NSSO. An attempt
had been made to draw in various missions, applications and user perspectives including Army
Major Ken Nickerson, Marine Major Brian Harwell, Navy Commander Randall Corre ia and
Marine Lt.Col. Steven Cosin.

Major Kenneth Nickerson talked to TacSat-3 launched in 2009. He says the urea nitrate used in
IEDs requires curing outside for three days. Apparently the results were mixed. Tasking began in
May and outputs were received in November. He says the field of view was about 20 square km.
Other programs providing input included DSP for explosion detection and Cobra Brass for
similar activities but in a Molniya orbit. He says GPS is used but has suffered jamming in the
Baghdad area. He also comments that operations by the Prowler EW aircraft had an impact on
GPS jamming. Those with military receivers could shift to L-2.

Brian Harwell described himself as an Intelligence Officer in the USMC. He says there are two
types of operational successes and intelligence failures. The failure of TSAT he explained is on
the process. He says space tasking is difficult without knowledge of the capabilities and
limitations of the intelligence assets (NTM). Competition between Army, USMC for use of
assets requires extensive knowledge, and he says they need to do a better job of training.
Exploitation and processing of imagery provides 0.5 or better resolution for a black and white
picture. The warfighter would like to be able to view a building from all four sides. This allows
knowledge on power lines, vertical obstacles, etc., but helicopter operations having information
on landing conditions is desired. Dissemination to the tactical level is tough, apparently due to
the narrow data paths (bandwidths) and the fact that not all have classified communications
capability. On operational security he says commercial sources are sometimes suspect. TPED
and data paths for CONUS space imagery are sometimes passed over commercial.

Commander Correia described himself as a Communications Planner. The Navy uses UHF
SatCom extensively along with SHF/EHF wide area network. Other assets of interest include:
      INTEL — GBS, AIS;
      Navigation and weather — GPS, DMSP;
      Imagery combat systems, satellites plus link 11/link 16, BMD, common operational
       picture (COP).

He lists UHF, SHF, and EHF communications satellites. He reminds us that support was
provided for disaster events such as the hurricane Katrina, Indonesian tsunami, and Haitian

Relief operations were heavily dependent upon satellite communications and Iridium but he says
civil and volunteer users had cell phones when service was available.

Weather information was available from both space and terrestrial sources. Commercial
communication was available. Saturation became apparent quickly with heavy operations. In
enemy action, adversaries take action quickly versus satellites. In terms of need, the warfighters
were consistent in wanting persistence, speed and both. TacSat programs were talked to as
experimental spacecraft and designed for regional coverage. They are looking forward to the
launch of TacSat-4 with the communications capability.

Reserve Lt.Col. Milstein described as an Intelligence Officer, is a Motorola software designer
in civilian life. He was apparently an Alpha Company Commander for Expeditionary Forces
(Brigade or below). The need is for persistence, present and in place. He poses the question ―Can
we land in the area?‖ He says there are too many feeds from the UAVs creating confusion. They
want a common operational picture (COP). On imagery versus answers, he says we want ―good

enough‖ data. He complains that the tasking systems use very old technology and this has led to
system failures.

In response to questions, we are told that the UHF saturation is prevalent, limiting voice and data
capabilities. EHF SecureCom apparently works when available.

On BMD, the network is to hand over the target by communications. Needed is to quickly
reassign communications to deal with saturation. Fresh imagery to the tactical commander is

The Navy wants fleet commander control of satellite assets. As an example, we are told that
DAMA on UHF satellite is not necessarily stable. There are problems with crypto or other TBD,
but the Captain wants it restored in minutes. We were told to think like the bad guy to forecast a

WGS is described as a great capability, but they don‘t all have the terminals.

We are told coalition warfare is here to stay and that there are barriers to sharing information
with allies. There needs to be tactical guidance on what can be shared. This results due to
classification at higher levels.

Sharing apparently is ongoing on commercial already but there is a trust issue.

On interoperability we are told that in some cases we ‘re deployed with a ―Rube Goldberg‖
system. Coalition integration needs to happen before the crisis or disaster strikes.

In the space denied environment operations, we are told that the USMC is used to doing with
less. We will do with what we have. They practice and train in doing without space but
commanders want space and will be shocked if it happens.

The Army comments that they don‘t have it at the ―kicking in the door‖ level.

Major Adam Baker (USMC) works in the JFCC space and says there is a high interest in
operationally responsive space. General Cartwright needs tactically and responsive space:
    Launch on time;
    Satellite operational;
      Early orbit check out;
      Initial operations.

In unforeseen crisis STRATCOM needs from the JFCC space:
      LEO-electro-optical;
      Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) — LEO constellation;
      From HEO-radio communications.

The desire to augment or replace a capability on orbit.

In response to questions on ‗What is good enough?‖ and ―Who determines what is good
enough?‖ there seem to be differences of opinion.

Navy says the requirements for C4I come by the PEO/SPAWAR. We are told the Navy is happy
with WGS and is moving from Challenge Athena and INMARSAT. He says ten MBPS are
available for 5 K users, but the intel imagery in black and white exceeds capability.

The Army points out that persistence is important. Information is needed in five minutes. Old
data costs lives.

The JSTARS radar log has been great for IED location, but it costs $33K per hour to fly and
therefore is not available 24/7. He complains that this provides vehicle level reso lution, not
people. GEO provides persistence but not high resolution.

UAS are coming on line and good for ―today‘s fight‖ but the future fight in denied areas will
require space capability. There is also the issue of air space saturation, UAS versus manned

The tactical commander needs to own the asset when it‘s over his AOR.

Joe Rouge, Director, NSSO, provided the NSS and ORS update. In response to the Wertz
question on whether there should be more responsive space conferences, he says there should
definitely be more, especially as we move from experiments to production. He says there are
many approaches to national security space (NSS), dependent upon which service perspective.

Reliance on space is growing every day with not only civil and nationa l security space
applications but an ever growing commercial space application base. Whereas in the early days,
it was mostly government, today it is 80% commercial and 20% government.

Response to the Haiti earthquake demonstrated the need to get there quickly. Reliance on space
is growing. Commercial is the largest user of GPS. Dependence on space is also growing. The
changing security environment necessitates a shift in how we think about ―space protection‖
including reconstitution. It is a complex environment with the number of objects in space
increasing, the object size decreasing, the number of users in space, now 43 countries, increasing
and the debris cloud increasing. We also live in an evolving threat with RF jamming, high/low
energy lasers, direct ASAT, co-orbital ASAT, physical attack, cyber attack, nuclear detonation,
and high power microwave threats.

In response to his RS-7 ―ORS reality check‖ (can we build satellites fast enough, launch them
fast enough, deliver good enough capability, reduce overall costs), he says he thinks ―Yes, we
can.‖ Accordingly, he says there is a requirement for ORS. Rouge points to progress over the last
year with the TacSat-3 launch, ORS-1 PDR in March, ORS Office — Rapid AI&T demo with
PnP satellite and a rapidly deployable space capability based assessment (RDS CBA). He says
they are ready to out-brief the interim results at the ORS EXCOM. Rouge says there is growing
community recognition and acceptance of and collaboration with ORS. He says overarching
policy and strategies are under review with the QDR completed and the SPR ongoing. There is
also a Presidential Review of national space policy (ongoing).

The ORS Office is staffed with representation from all services, NASA, NRO, NSA, SNL, and
NGA (soon). Some key executing agents are working with the ORS Office, including: SDTW,
NASA, AFRL, AFSPC, SMC. Collaborative discussions are ongoing with NRO, SMDC, MDA,
NGA, etc.

On ORS-1 he says the payload is derived from the U-2 aircraft sensor and the spacecraft bus is
derived from the ATK TacSat-3 bus. Ground C2 uses AFSPC MMSOC. TPED maximizes reuse
of airborne TPED. ORS-1 is not an experiment but an operational satellite. It is a rapid response
to the Joint Force Commanders need for an EO/IR imagery capab ility. It has an aggressive
schedule, 24 months from ATP to launch ready. It is to launch from Wallops Island on a
Minotaur I in December, 2010. Funding has been committed by the ORS Office, US Air Force
and US Army.

Rouge talks to TacSat-3 as being less than $90M total. It is the first TacSat payload mission
selected based on COCOM recommendations. A near term decision is what to do after the one
year experiment.

Rouge talks to the analogy for the ORS operating concept referencing the Pete Wegner U-2
Recon Wing capability for space chart as a further indication of progress. Rouge talks to the
RRSW RFP release and the ORS 2015 blueprint, all based on modular open system architecture
(MOSA). He calls this a ―prototype‖ demonstration effort with a plan to transition to operational

In talking to other ORS efforts, he talks to experimentation including TacSat-4 upcoming launch
as well as war games and exercises. On prototyping, he points to RRSW and ORS-1 plus ORS-
N. On CONOPS he says the CONOPS was updated in December, 2009. ORS-1 CONOPS is in

In the QDR, Rouge highlights the ―more focus on investment in air sea battle concept, long range
strike, space and cyber space, among other conventional and strategic modernization programs. ‖
As an enhancement, he says ―Assure access to space and the use of space assets. ‖ This includes
fielding capabilities for rapid augmentation and reconstitution of space capabilities will enhance
the overall resiliency of space architectures.

On the space policy review (SPR) he says this is still ongoing. An interim report has been sent to
the Congress. The final SPR is pending completion of the White House Policy Review. He
summarizes indicating that ORS is leading the way and getting noticed. He sees an operational
constellation buy is the next step and he believes it will be flown. But he doesn‘t want to explain
―something stupid done by industry.‖ He says ORS has demonstrated again it can contract
quickly and yes, we can do it overnight in some areas.

Dr. Dave Hardy, AFRL Assistant Director, talked to responsive space technology
development. He says AFRL Space Vehicle Directorate is funding a solid S&T program in
responsive space. He says the space plug and play architecture is the S&T foundatio n enabling
US STRATCOM CONOPS. This new paradigm creates major S&T challenges for bus payload,
ground subsystems and CONOPS.

Plug and play (PnP) satellite is defined as: a modular satellite with open standards and interfaces,

self-describing components and an auto-configuring system. The ASIM interface module
translates between legacy components and the new architecture. He talked to the PnP bus
architecture maturation and the S&T development plan that is broad based, long term and hard.

There are three development tracks including:
    Conventional urgent need track,
      Limited operational capability track, and
      Flexible PnP architecture track.

The architecture track has generated the first generation advanced PnP bus, leading to PnP,
thermal propulsion, leading to modular payloads, APT and ORS-2. He submits that limited S&T
funding could be the ―long pole‖ in achieving the desired end state.

Hardy points to excellent progress to date using the PnP Sat assembly at RS-7 as an example.
Other examples include legacy bus subsystems converted, new subsystems development:
    ORS S&T investment — fly space CDL on ORS-1 (FY-10)
    AFRL work in packaged GN&C systems.

Hardy talked to the modular payload architecture development underway where ORS will be
investing in a modular SAR payload for SAR Sat. He says AFRL is also investing in modular
EO payload architectures. He believes the community is moving toward acceptance of the PnP

On the CDL, Hardy says it provides interoperability, was flown on TacSat-2 and a space
qualification box on TacSat-3, and on ORS-1, reduced SWAP by a factor of 10.

Thermal balance is still an issue. He believes they are closing the gap between PnP avionics and
a fully responsive spacecraft.

Hardy believes excellent progress has been made on CONOPS and TPED. TacSat-3 is
demonstrating CONOPS and TPED progress. This includes in theater DCGS tasking and CDL
downlink, proven viable.

On the advanced plug and play technology bus (APT) (previously referred to as TacSat-5) CDR
design is underway. Six industry partners, including large and small firms are under contract.
The program pace is constrained by resources but launch is expected in mid-2014 or later.
Hardy says that they will select one from the six vendors at CDR. The APT selection date was
not shown on his schedule.

In response to questions, Hardy says the ORS-1 and TacSat-3 data formats on CDL are the same
as existing for U-2.

John Silny, Raytheon, presented the Responsive Space Design Decisions on ARTEMIS. He
talked to the high resolution concern and their selection of the HRI (visible) camera using a
single focal plane in 7 um, 1X4096 COTS, ruggedized for space. Design life is a one year goal.
The telescope selected has a focus mechanism and on-board health monitor. They are using an

Offner Spectrometer including a tactical cryocooler. Early tradeoffs were on cost and schedule
versus performance. This led to a mostly single string COTS tactical grade approach. On orbit
focus provides adjustment and calibration. The goal was to reduce complexity at every step.

The Dalsa camera apparently cost $2.5K. It is less than 275 g mass and ruggedized for space.
They expanded the temperature range to –25° C. A tactical cryocooler is being used but with
redundant electronics and with a rad hard switch.

The Offner Spectrometer provides spectral- spatial uniformity. It uses the precision instrument
slit and has a telescope focus mechanism. It was launched 5/19/09 and he says ten months
continuous operation has followed. Silny indicates that Raytheon's view of the future includes a
wide field of view hyperspectral and a visible through LWIR hyperspectral.

Luke Walker from Georgia Tech talked to R3 : Thermal imaging and rapid feature detection for
small satellites. His example includes demonstration of an uncooled microbolometer in a space
environment to evaluate radiation effects on performance. This would characterize the radiation
environment in LEO by measuring single event upsets (SEU) and total ionizing dose (TID). It
also uses on-board image processing algorithms to detect and geolocate thermal features. This is
part of the University Nanosat program.

Mass is 40.7 kg and he says spacecraft development costs are to be less than $1M. It is to use on
board processing with a Blabber algorithm. It also has an edge detection algorithm. Launch is
TBD. A flight competition review is scheduled for January, 2011.

Dr. Pete Rustan, NRO, was the luncheon speaker addressing the State of the Spacecraft and
Rocket Industry.

Rustan says the US does not drive satellite market now that we have over 40 countries with
space programs. This is partly driven by US policy decisions as well as international
competition. He further comments that the US does not command the launch market, since there
are now over seven countries/consortiums with launch systems. Further, few commercial
satellites are launched using US rockets. The US share went from 40% in 1998 to 23% in 2008
while the total number of launches remains steady.

From his perspective, ORS was created to address the trend for small satellites/rocket market in
order to develop quick reaction capabilities for the military. He says at the same time we should
be invigorating the space industrial base. On approaches, he says use standardized bus
development and payload interfaces and build specialized spacecraft for niche missions and push
technologies (spacecraft and rocket) to demonstrate advanced capabilities.

On spacecraft bus development, he says develop a plug in modular bus and infrastructure for
small (less than 1000kg) bus, spacecraft subsystems and components while avoiding tailored
spacecraft designs.

Rustan suggests using standardized models for three modular configurations with weights at
100kg, 500kg, and 1000kg. Adapt the design for different orbits. He seems to believe that
modular standardized bus structures and subsystems will satisfy the needs.

On the bus development and payload interface, he suggests alliances with various government
organizations which can be easily integrated with the buses to meet national space needs. He
suggests use of payloads (developmental and operational) to match the three buses. He suggests
concentration on commonalities, ICDs, large scale production and encouraged the payload
builders to focus on payloads. He suggests we don't duplicate other government programs by
providing limited capabilities of the same thing.

Rustan says build specialized spacecraft for niche missions. This enables new technologies/
methodologies of sensors, protection and communications. Again, he suggests avoid duplication
of effort of baseline programs, instead concentrating on additional new capabilities.

In the technology push area, he suggests ORS be a technology driven organization to develop
new space/ground and rocket capabilities. Develop tests and standardize small satellite constella-
tion architectures. Set standards for smart processing and information systems.

Examples of architecture concepts include:
    Synthesize apertures;
      Multisatellite integrated architectures;
      Cross-communications with higher band widths;
      Formation flying;
      Sparse apertures;
      L-band radar.

He has similar ideas for improving ground infrastructure.

To enhance launch Rustan suggests we evolve to standardized vehicles with common interfaces.
He suggests encouraging new participants into this business. He suggests a block buy construct
and use of commercial business practices. Stimulate entrepreneurial venture capital investment.
Rustan believes reduced costs will increase launch opportunities.

In grading the responsive space today his perspective is:
     Small spacecraft development           –
     Bus plug and play                      +
     Payload capability development         –
      Small launch vehicle stimulation       +

He says this is based on value added capabilities to users.
      Key points:
       – Continue to do well on:
          • Reducing cost per pound for access to space,
          • Building modular bus infrastructure,
          • Embracing the entrepreneurial community.
      Areas for improvement:
       – Don’t try to be everything to everybody;

           •   Concentrate on specific buses;
           •   Work with payload suppliers to expand the business.
           •   Reduce integration & testing costs & perform only required environmental tests;
           •   Avoid unrealistic assertions of mission capability/costs;
           •   Find your flagship identifier and stick to it.

The Spacecraft Technology 2 session was chaired by Stan Kennedy and Greg Orndorff.

Robert Burt, SDL, talked to cost advantages of modular scalable avionics. SDL identified four
main design goals for cost and utility:
    Volume production;
    High degree of configurability;
    Ability to scale;
      Follow a standard.

It was determined that functional partitioning was the key to achieving three of the four factors.
He then talked to the performance requirements versus the number of partitions toward reaching
a ―sweet spot‖ to minimize costs. The idea is to change the function without changing the

He talked to scaling up versus scaling out, concluding that architecture that allows for both scale
up and out is ultimately the most cost effective.

Standards provide a range of advantages. It allows taking advantage of existing infrastructure
and components for testing, debugging and other support. It also increases portability and
interoperability. He suggests we ―ride on the shoulders of those who have gone before. ‖

SDL has a modular avionic system (MODAS) that is a result of their in-house studies. Their
design is a modular avionics based on PCI-104 standards. The baseline configuration for each
MODAS is the CPU and DC to DC converter. Additional memory, power switches and payload
interfaces can be added. He claims in a PnP environment MODAS can utilize the satellite data
model (SDM) and is compliant to the functional testing environment. Early testing has involved
the SPA-S network mapping in which three PnP nodes were mapped a nd registered in five
seconds. Testing to date only involves three nodes.

In response to questions, he says the TRL low and for flight MODAS has no flight heritage yet.

The processor is an Aeroflex SPARC P-8.

Brent McMickell, Honeywell, talked to a momentum control system for agile responsive space
satellites. This is a miniature momentum control system (MMCS) developed under AFRL
contract as an experiment. He submits that small satellites need more capability and smaller
volume and yet highly agile to meet varying requirements. The CMG-based MMCS is scheduled
for delivery in 2011. He submits that this design will meet the capability gap between CMG and
RWA technology. The MMCS is sized for TacSat sized spacecraft. It supports the SPA-S
interface. He says it can be scaled up and fill the capability gap between the RWA and CMG

Dr. Tim Hasselman, ACTA, Inc., talked to structural dynamic modeling methods for
responsive space satellites. He has concluded that substructure dynamic models must be
assembled quickly to meet the needs of operational responsive space satellites and this requires
availability of validated reduced-order models for rapid assembly. In order to evaluate the
predictive accuracy of these assembled structural dynamic models, substructure uncertainty
models commensurate with reduced substructure models are required. These substructure
uncertainty models must be propagated up the modeling chain to evaluate the predictive
accuracy of assembled components, including interface components.

Session 5, Launch, was chaired by Dr. Robert Conger, Microcosm.

Seiji Matsuda of IHI AeroSpace, Japan, talked to development of an affordable and dedicated
nanolauncher. IHI does both aircraft and terrestrial launchers. It is also a Japanese solid rocket
motor manufacturer and builds sounding rockets. He says they have been involved in 1400
sounding rockets and 27 satellite LVS flights. He feels that the small satellite market is growing
and talks to the ―CubeSat shock‖ as being comparable to Man-on-the-Moon and Gregorian shock
or Sputnik shock in the nanosat revolution. He says nanolaunch capability is critical to sustaining
the innovation wave in nanospace. IHI is developing on a commercial basis the Space Spike-1
and Space Spike — 2 families of launch vehicles, both air launched. They are derived from the
terrestrially based SS520 and S520. F-104 appears to be the current launch vehicle aircraft. They
are forecasting availability in 2013. In response to questions, he said cost is still TBD.

Aaron Dinardi — SpaceX submits that responsive launch does exist. He says further that
responsive space is not necessarily just small satellites.

SpaceX products include the Falcon 1 for light lift and Falcon 9 for medium lift. The
Dragon/Dragon Lab are for ISS resupply and science.

There have been five launches of the F-1 and the enhanced version the F-1e is planned for first
flight in 2011.

Dinardi submits that the SpaceX product line fits the Tier 2 needs (days to weeks). F-1 will take
925 pounds to LEO and F-1e will launch 2200 pounds to LEO. While early F-1 flights were not
successful, he points to the September, 2008, number 4, and July, 2009, number 5, successes.

He says it‘s responsive with the potential for a four hour countdown on a pad. F-1e costs $10.9M
and F-9 $45–51M. F-9 Dragon is priced at $75–100M.

In terms of lessons learned, he says that the learning curve shows that 2 to 3 launches are needed
to shake out the bugs on a new launch vehicle.

Dr. Tom Bauer, Microcos m, talked to a new Scorpius® for microsat market designated
Minisprite. Minisprite is described as a three stage low cost pressure fed, LOX — kerosene
vehicle that can launch in 24 hours from ready inventory. Production cost is said to be less than
$3M each without range cost. He is quoting 138 pounds to sun sync orbit with a 25" pod
diameter and a gross weight of 20k pounds. Bauer envisions this will address the Scout market
segment now that Scout is no longer available.

In response to questions, Bauer says this is a really good deal and has been around a long time.
Scorpius® has been on and off again due to DoD funding issues, since Teets and Dickman left
the Air Force. The Air Force has been the anchor tenant. Estimated cost to complete
development is $14 to 15M to first flight in about 20 months. An adaptor for multipayloads is
planned as a future effort.

Bruce Yost, NASA Ames RC, talked to a nanosat launch adaptor system (NLAS). He says there
have been eight successful Cal Poly P-POD launches to date. He talked to the various
configurations of CubeSat that are available today. The NLAS structure, dispenser and controller
is 38.8" in diameter and 10" tall. It will serve as a CubeSat dispenser and sequencer. The total
mass in a launch configuration including 36 spacecraft is 143kg. Ames plans to do qualification
testing to meet the requirements for Falcon 1e and Minotaur 1. A qual test program is planned
for completion in the fall 2010. Current first flight plans are for Falcon 1e demonstration in
April, 2011, from Kwajalein.

Dr. Jim Wertz, Microcos m, talked to assessment of small sat utility and the need for dedicated,
low cost, responsive small satellite launch. Wertz submits that small sats and CubeSats have
made substantial progress over the last decade. Nonetheless, there is some concern that we
cannot afford to develop and deploy either large numbers of small sats or a dedicated small sat
launcher, particularly given the need to contain, and most likely reduce, space spending over the
next several years. He submits there is a very strong need to significantly reduce space mission
cost. He says his case was made by internal study funded by Microcosm.

Wertz says that small sats can reduce overall mission risk by providing robustness and backups.
Launch cost is the driver for system costs, particularly for small systems. He submits that
properly deployed, small sats can reduce the accumulation of orbital debris.

Wertz says there is no ―validated need‖ for responsive launch. There is no validated need for
rapid spacecraft replenishment. Yet, he submits current systems are fragile, if rapid replenish-
ment isn‘t needed then we can do without the system and there is also no need for initial high
mission assurance.

Wertz says a low cost small launcher is a mission enabling capability that can compliment
traditional missions, provide greater near term mission assurance, enable potential moderate term
space cost reduction of billions and significantly improve the utility of space for the modern
warfighter and civil user.

On small sat orbits, he says operational small sat missions should not be in traditional LEO
orbits. He suggests that for small sat missions, we fly in the 200 to 400 km range with sufficient
Delta V to allow a 1–3 year life and substantial maneuvering. He submits there is a real and
immediate need to reduce costs. The technology is in place to do so. The risk of continuing with
business as usual is very large. Wertz submits the savings can be applied to budget reduction or
doing more for the warfighter, or both. He further submits that there is no failure free space sys-
tem. Reduced risk and high mission assurance come from system robustness — having sufficient
backups and options available to ensure mission success even when inevitable failures do occur.

The ultimate result of adding small sats and launch on demand to our inventory would be more

resilient up-to-date capabilities that could quickly take advantage of new technologies, survive
unexpected damage, and respond to changing world events at greatly reduced cost.

Wertz submits that the highest risk to the American space program is to continue business as

BGen Kurt Story, US Army SMDC Deputy Commander, was the dinner speaker March 10.

Story says that there should be redundancy in domain: terrestrial, air and space. The TSAT
cancellation left a gap in the requirements for communications on the move (COTM). The space
policy review (SPR) and space policy are late. An interim SPR has been sent to Congress.

Story says we need space situational awareness as well as offensive counterspace and defensive
counterspace. There is heavy reliance on commercial communications and space based ISR.

The space industrial base is fragile particularly in the second and third tier. Critical technologies
are funded. ITAR reform is on the horizon. The Secretary of State is supportive of the transfer to
the Department of Commerce. Commercial Space is a significant contribution to our capability.

The Army has a space career field now and they are taking the fight to the insurgents in
Afghanistan. The Army transformation is ongoing and almost done.

The Army supports a full spectrum of operations and relies on space capabilities including real
time ISR and relay communications. Satellite communications allow an expanded battle space,
near real time weather. Near time missile warning is needed, but bandwidth demand continues to
grow. GPS is critical to everything: parachute drops and weapons on target.

SATCOM and PNT are needed along with ISR at the corps level. Space is relied upon for the
weather and environmental monitoring. The solar environment as well as early missile warning
and more accurate prediction are needed. With fine impact prediction less operations impact
takes place on a given missile launch.

Loss of space means less battle space, more uncertainty, more fog and more casualties. Space
access is at risk with the North Korean and Iranian nuclear intentions. The Chinese ASAT has
demonstrated their capability as well as increasing the space debris in LEO. Space debris and out
of control satellites are increasing the threat to our spacecraft.

Jamming of GPS and communications by a cyber assault makes us vulnerable.

Space and cyber are interrelated. There is ballistic missile defense (BMD) potential impact if
BMD communication is jammed. The satellite control net intrusions are a factor especially if we
have an insider threat.

Responsive space is important. The strategy to operate in D3SOE environment requires training
on D3 and PACE Concept.

Robust systems are needed. ORS serves a critical role. The JFCC requirement goals are:
    Exploit technologies;

      Augment space systems;
      Reconstitute if lost (immediate to 12 months delivery).

He says it‘s much more than launch.

The GPS surge in Afghanistan due to terrain blockage has led to expansion from 24 to 27 satel-
lites using the satellites on orbit. A Tier 1 example.

Tier 2 would mean in the barn systems ready to deploy.

Tier 3 development of new capabilities and technology solutions. He says the Army is
committed to space capabilities and as examples listed: SMDC-1, KESTRAL, and NanoEye.

The focus is on the ground tactical commander. Design development and operations
development should be considering his needs. He says they are ready and willing to partner. A
versatile and persistent system with a direct downlink is desired. An open architecture for ease
of uncomplicated integration is wanted.

―ORS is a team sport.‖ The nation needs responsive systems and we need them now.

In response to questions, he says the Army response to Sputnik in 1958 was their early
involvement in space.

Deployment options include on orbit spares versus those in the barn.

Training is needed on ORS use.

The Army is part of a consortium with a stake in shared payloads.

Dr. Peter Wegner, Director, ORS Office, says the conference should continue; however, he
comments that it has become more difficult to communicate with industry since some of the
operations are now classified. He suggested the potential classified sessions may be included
within the conference next year.

Wegner introduced his panel, including:
   LtCol Greg Glover — Tier 1;
   LtCol Tim Henderson — Tier 2;
   Jeffrey Welsh — Tier 3.

Wegner quotes the QDR “contest or deny command of air, sea and space and cyberspace. ” He
poses the question: How do you create ORS? He responds indicating a Tuesday EXCOM is
coming including the Secretary of the Air Force and STRATCOM Commander. STRATCOM
refreshed the CONOPS in December, 2009 for the 2015 end state. The goal is still to
reconstitute, augment, and replace capabilities. Options include:
     ICBM launch, very expensive;
     Bus and payload modules in storage. This solves the space component lead time issue,
        currently a 12 to 18 month nominal case.

Wegner says approach number 2 was selected using a modular architecture and comments that
this is also used in unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

In terms of progress, Wegner points to four Urgent Needs (UN) done for concepts and solutions.
They look to SPC A-5 for requirements and to SMC/XR for concepts and solutions.

To address Tier 2, they are going to the RRSW and MSV and are working with various
government agencies.

He talks to Tier 3, calling it an innovation call.

In operationalizing ORS, he says multiple military agencies are represented. Services now have
ORS program elements starting with FY-10. An O-6 Forum meets once per quarter. For
example, the theater missile warning is an Army responsibility. Communications upgrade falls to
the Navy. He comments that Admiral Stanley validated the space support ICD 2/24/10. The
architecture is end to end. He talks to the TacSat-3 and award of the ORS-1 as recent successes.

Contracting: on ORS-1 he says 17 days from the SECAF to award, as an exa mple that we can
move quickly. ORS is working on an international strategy. He comments that a payload task
order for the RRSW/MSV was to be released the upcoming Friday.

ORS will release a SETA RFP via GSA 4/1/10. Another BAA is planned in the fall 2010. ORS
also intends to utilize the Small Business Innovative Research Program (SBIR).

Wegner says a constellation buy is in consideration, if needed for the architecture, poss ibly from
one of the services. The CONOPS and international activities are not specific now but he says an
OSD policy is in works.

On university partnering, he says two students are coming to the ORSO this summer.

White paper responses are desirable to the BAA to establish mutual interest.

We are reminded that applications for systems must be critical and useful to the warfighter.

The estimated cost for ORS-1 is $150 to $200M; it started at $180M and is now $200M at the
systems level, including a management reserve. He said the reason for growth is the ground
station and applications.

In response to questions, we are told that Israel is leading with responsive air launch from an F-
15 platform. Minotaur and the Falcon I/Ie are baselines for launch near term. Long term, air
launch may be a good option.

On the volume moving through the RRSW, we are told the system will be utilized for training
when not in operation, at every part of the architecture.

RRSW would welcome a commercial parallel effort if available and thus would reduce the
inventory needs. We need open common standards and block buys.

Launch vehicles plans for modularity are desired and none are available today. A streamlined
range is being worked; common avionics across the spacecraft and launch vehicle are desired,
possibly using the spacecraft avionics to control the launch vehicle.

On Urgent Need, we are told ORS-1 satisfies a CENTCOM need.

On funding for ORSSat-1, we are told that the ORS enabler development funded about half the
cost with the balance coming from the SECAF. U-2 software is appropriate for ORS-1 and an
enabler. He says another is coming (UN-4?) and a similar situation exists.

Army LtCol Greg Glover has had past NRO and SMDC assignments. On why the nation needs
ORS, he says the adversary capability to deny use of space creates the need. On how to create the
ORS capability, he says deploy ready to field assets. He says operationalize. Services must have
their own capability to use ORS. We must streamline acquisition policies. He says focus on the
“good enough to win.” The mission is to deliver space power to the Joint Force Commander
(JFC) and augment and replenish.

We were told it is tough to build the airplane while flying it. ORSO must respond to the JFC
needs and at the same time build the enablers. The architecture must address TPED (ISR
systems). ORS is to provide the warfighter capability in electro optical (EO), HSI, strategic/
tactical missile warning, protected comm., SSA, SAR, and tactical electronic support (TES).
The architecture supports the ORS investment strategy and roadmap development. It must be
consistent, repeatable and defensible for investment decisions. And it must close the loop to
ensure that the solution actually met the user needs. It should benefit in interoperability from the
developments of others. It should reduce the life cycle costs by using standards.

USMC LtCol Rob Tercselic, Tier 1 Chief, says focus on the operational, joint and warfighter
effects: exploit, respond, and enhance. Non National Technical Means (NTM), commercial,
foreign, civil and other space capabilities are his interest. He must facilitate user knowledge of
the capabilities and uses. Therefore tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination (TPED)
development and demonstration are his interests. The process is based on the air tasking order
(ATO) for close air support (CAS).

In the “patrolling from space” ORS is entering into partners hips with SMDC, ONR, NGA, and
others. Tier 1 is to deliver capability with operations and innovation using existing capabilities.
War games are using O RS in planning for future wars. “What if?” Exercise ORS future systems.
TacSat-3 will provide collection of data through July. TacSat-4 is delayed 6 months. Joint
military utility assessment (JUMA) is planned.

LtCol. Tim “Hoover” He nde rson, ORS Office Tier 2 Division Chief, says he is responsible for
the development and stand up of the Rapid Response Space Works (RRSW). This is envisioned
as an operational readiness capability that would have an on-call capability. Since the RFP is on
the street, he was reluctant to discuss some details, but indicates the activities will include:
     Standup of the RRSW,
     Develop AI&T processes, and
     Lead efforts with the services to transition requirements to a capability on orbit.

Henderson says the intent is to deliver combat capability via augmentation and limited
reconstitution. They will be using the modular open system architecture (MOSA) for both
hardware and software. RRSW will provide the critical mass with the facilities and inventory to
launch on schedule. A block strategy is envisioned.

On CONOPS he says Legal is now involved at the JFCC Space, but he envisions the y would act
on the JFCC Space Execution Order to RRSW. He says “tasking promises” is a new term being
used in the Office. It’s envisioned that a throttleable responsiveness capability via industry would
augment the RRSW allowing dial up of the capability need to respond to the JFCC. He
highlights that we must work together: ORSO, Air Force, IC and industry. Current AIT focus is
on the payload.

Dr. Jeff Welsh, ORS Office Tier 3 Division Chief, says they are to be able to respond to
unanticipated needs within a year and development should take place in less than 12 months.
Tier 3 is the technology conduit for ORS insertion, also for processes and procedures. A
roadmap for the pillars and enablers is in work. He says innovation is key. They are looking at
the art of the possible with technology.

Welsh says on the Range a space based range may be appropriate. Autonomous flight safety,
rapid safety planning, and modularity are key factors to meeting the unexpected needs rapidly.
In science and technology, he says they plan to leverage the national laborato ries and industry
investments. Current focus is on architecture, standards and interfaces for quick integration.
Trained people and the facilities in RRSW will be key.

Examples of recent efforts include the L-3 payload ASIM development. He also mentions the
DRS modular E/O architecture product and a composite mirror application (CMA). He also
mentions a GPB-4 on-board metric tracking capability at Wallops Island, apparently used as a
position source for Minotaur. On the way ahead, he says developing modular capabilities and
maturing the technology roadmaps and mission enabling requirements are envisioned. He wants
to hear more innovative ideas.

In response to questions on contract streamlining we are told that 17 days were needed for the
contract on ORS-1 but it was not easy and met some criticism.

They are to put the IDIQ contract in place for RRSW/MSV fast acquisition with a $500M

On the time from launch to operations for the warfighter, we were told that this is mission
dependent. For example the need for calibration could impact time.

Other mission examples include Space Situational Awareness (SSA), Electronic Support (RF
spectrum “big vacuum cleaner”), and emitter geolocation.

Wegner said it's time for the services to POM to buy capability. The FY-12 POM deliberations
are on-going through the summer and into the fall.

It is envisioned that ORS capability demonstrations may be folded into future operational
systems. The analogy given was the similarity between the UAV demonstrations, leading to the
operational UAS.

On Tier 3 future technology infusion, we were told that the end architecture will focus on Tier 3.
Tier 2 will be an operational capability.

On ORS to be an Air Force component, we were told that is TBD.

On Rapid Tasking, we were told that the ad hoc approach continues. There is a CONOPS swirl
in DoD. ORS-1 is considered a groundbreaker on the tasking. The VMOC Tier 3 will normalize
the approach.

Dr. Peter Wegner introduced the “ORS is not new — it’s just new for space” panel. They are:
      Navy Captain Fred Beavers, Director of Operations.
      Col. James “Al” Marshall was identified as the Director of Safety. He apparently has Air
       Combat Command U-2 experience as a pilot with 4300 hours.
      LtCol. Rick Thomas was identified as the Chief of Operations and Logistics. He has been
       involved with the UAV Task Force and the RQ-4 Global Hawk.
      Dr. Robert Spulak, Chief of Strategic Studies, Sandia National Laboratory, was identified
       as a Special Operations Forces expert.

Dr. Robe rt Spulak talked to SOF as responsive and innovative. SOCOM was created separate
by Congress, like ORS, and he described it as a precarious organization. Accordingly, they have
an unstable position, not fully acceptable to all personnel belonging to the services. They usually
come into play during conflict and when there is problem. SOCOM is a joint assignment. He
says the nature of the personnel is what is special. Flexibility and innovation are demanding of
people. They are to accomplish high risk objectives. Junior officers carry much higher
responsibility than usual.

LtCol. Thomas says the Air Force is the executive agent for UAS and this includes over 7,000
UAVs, mostly small. These systems compete with manned aircraft programs. He says we need to
prevent mission creep, cost creep and push interoperability on both Air Force and Navy
programs. The warfighter only wants the tools to win.

The FAA gets involved on safety, even in Haiti. Title 49 covers air and space, versus Title 10
(Air Force). He says approximately 20 people are required to fly a Global Hawk.

Col. Marshall talked to the environment of the U-2 pilot. Operations are safe, effective, and
sustained. He says on the U-2, every sortie is a moon shot. The operations concept is very
simple, modularity is key. The aircraft is designed to use different payloads. The warfighter is
not worried about efficiency, effectiveness is the primary concern. TPED planning up front is
key. He suggests we must feed the product into existing systems.

In response to question, he indicates innovation and creativity are the lessons learned as being
central to the SOF. They must think differently.

We are told this also causes friction: uncertainty and unpredictability. For conventional forces
this would be unacceptable risk.

On ORS asset control, we are told that Global Hawk goes over various COCOMs. Priority will
have a great deal to do with mission control.

On the U-2, we are told that the IC wanted lots of information over a broad area, but the COIN
also wanted lots, but different information.

On international collaboration on UAS operations, we are told to bring the countries to the
partnership by offering capability (ISR) that they don't have with remotely piloted aircraft. It is
merely the pilot on the ground. Products that can be passed to the partners are important. The
classification level should be established at the start.

SOF was ongoing prior to 9/11. They were already familiar with use of precision guided
weapons. Post 9/11 SOF value was demonstrated when the limitations on conventional forces
became apparent. The plan to synchronize the GWOT task came from the SecDef and they
invented a process to do it. Success in the Afghanistan environment was the ability to work with
the indigenous people.

Interoperability is important. Example was a Navy helicopter that could provide full motion
video, highly in demand, but it only went to the ship.

We are told that the safety of UAS is in the Model T age. It is envisioned it will be 2014 to field
the detect and avoid, but to what standard is still TBD.

On Air Force ISR flight plan, we are to ld there are two flight parts: ISR and UAS. Space is a
large part of the ISR plan.

On cyber integration, two parts, security and attack were identified. We are told that “Made in
China” represents a threat. Information assurance is basic to the mission. Cyber superiority is a
core mission.

On the ORS U-2 analogy, it was pointed out that infrastructure is needed to be successful. It is a
system of systems. Follow the electron from the sensor to the user. It involves those that you
don’t control and must coordinate with people don’t own or control, a relationship issue.

B Gen James “Woody” Haywood, Director of Require ment, AFSPC, A-5, was the luncheon
speaker 3/11/10. He began his talk indicating that Responsive Space is a good conference and

Today's warfighter depends on space and cyberspace and he lists the missions as missile
warning, communications, weather, navigation, ISR, space surveillance, precision strike, missile
defense and space access. These capabilities shape the American way of warfare.

The SPC mission is to provide an integrated constellation of space and cyberspace capabilities
“at the speed of need.”

Space and cyber are used in joint operations including irregular warfare, global assessment, near
peer operations, and crisis management. He quotes Gen. Kehler stating we must “strike with
precision, navigate with accuracy, communicate with certainty, see the battlefield with clarity,
operate with assurance and acquire with agility. ” On the SPC goals, he talks to the safe, credible,
ready nuclear deterrent force with perfection as the standard. The Global Strike Command stand
up was 12/1/09.

We must deliver assured combat power to the joint fight; forge a battle-ready team by attracting,
developing and retaining America’s best. Modernize and sustain SPC’s enduring missions and
mature emerging missions. Reengineer acquisitions to deliver capability at the speed o f need.

Haywood talks to the A-5 fit within the requirements and acquisition process front end. They
must identify the feasibility requirements at Milestone B. They must shift from the enabling to
the operational concept. Enabling concepts for capability (communications, ISR, cyber) need to
be communicated to the COCOM and they need to think about different ways to get capability
alternatives. They must leverage the S&T advancements.

On the Acquisition Improvement Plan (AIP), he says they need communications early between
the requirements and the acquisition communities. We need to “go fast.” Gen Kehler is dual
hatted to generate requirements and acquire space capabilities.

On the SPC requirements process and improvement, he says we must get the requirements
process well documented and tailored to meet “at the speed of need.” They will lay out the
mission “speed of need” in a roadmap. He says we need good people in space and we need some
in cyber. The process is only good if it delivers the product.

On Rapid Cyber Acquisition, he says we need to develop and codify the triage process. He talked
to real time cyber capability delivery and used the Ten Cap approach as an example. The need is
to stand up a rapid cyber acquisition process. We must address required authorities and expand
relationships with the cyber community. In talking to cyber acquisition at the speed of need, he
used a pyramid showing the operations and innovation (within hours to weeks) to do real time in
San Antonio in the 24th Air Force. Rapid (in weeks to months) would be handled by ESC at
Hanscom AFB. Foundational capability (months to years) would be also at ESC/PEO Cyber,
Hanscom AFB.

On Rapid Space Acquisition, he says they will leverage the Rapid Cyber 8 Step Review. They
must codify the new process.

On the Acquisition Front End, he talks to the overlapping responsibilities in requirements
generation, science and technology and developmental planning leading to enabling concepts.

Haywood showed the U-2 analogy for ORS with the aircraft platforms being similar to the
responsive buses and payloads being similar to the responsive payloads, all working through a
responsive infrastructure that is scalable with tailorable C2 and TPED. In talking to the
requirements and acquisition front end, he talked to the RDS status:
     Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) complete October, 2009,

      ICD in coordination (ECD: July, 2010),
      Brief the JROC September, 2010,
      Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) — FY-11 start.

This all leads to the ICD and the MDD tied to the various procurement milestones.

On responsive launch, Haywood says SDTW contracts for small launches and can launch on
about 18 month schedules. Future small space launch could be two to four small LVs per year.
On the intersection of space and cyberspace, Haywood describes this as game changing effects.
It is much broader than ORS. He questions "Where is the demand?" Rapidly deployed payloads
will drive the need. We can increase launch on schedule as well as launch on demand.

In talking to the game changing effects, he lists:
      Increased access, identification and attribution,
      Situational comprehension,
      Rapid restoration of critical assets,
      Mission assurance in all domains and
      Increased indications and warnings.

He reminds us that the A-5 focus is on effects in space and cyberspace including rapid
restoration of capability.

In response to questions, Haywood says cyberspace requirements that can be leveraged or the
other way around. Network defense was fragmented in all organizations and they d idn’t work
well together. The 24th Air Force now has the joint lead; we must apply the other requireme nts to
cyber but must be fast. He says it has been demonstrated that a low investment is required to
wreak havoc.

ARTEMIS may transition to operations. Generals Kehler and Chilton are meeting on the subject.

Haywood says they are flushing out the CONOPS and budget, operators need for training, etc.
The issue is the utility of the product.

On battle space awareness, he says the MAJCOM Commander lead is assigned to “move the
football” to get data to the users. There is a growing area, but niche specific. A-2 has a big role
and is well connected to A-5 on a roadmap. The goal is to tie in other sensors.

Dan Levack chaired the Session VI on Operations.

The first speaker was Dan King, MDA Corporation, talking to on-demand satellite refueling.
He highlights that satellite replenishment is the only option today and that the space architecture
is relatively risk intolerant. The risks of the buy only option are:
      Long procurement cycle;
      Up front investment (hundreds of millions to billions);
      Launch and deployment risks.

In his case for on-demand satellite refueling, he says there are two current ways to address the
ORS immediate (within months) responsiveness. These are:
     Make the fielding of new capabilities quicker;
     Enable on-orbit servicing of existing assets.

This will make the assets last longer and new capabilities can be added by servicing. He submits
that the risks are manageable.

Economic benefits include a gap- filler capability and special operations such as maneuvering.

King talked to the MDA heritage with robotic assembling and operations, autonomous rendez-
vous, etc., leading to satellite servicing/refueling. The Orbital Express demonstrated satellite
servicing is feasible. He says MDA is planning a commercial version and can do tow operations
or remove satellites. This could also augment the cleanup and removal of dead satellites and
debris. He was asked about his business case, but did not respo nd.

Aimal Siraj of Void, Inc. talked to mesh networking of sma ll low earth orbit satellites. He
questions whether techniques used on terrestrial mesh networks could be applied to LEO mesh

Topological properties of LEO networks include:
    Deterministic configuration,
    Periodicity,
    Homogeneity,
    Fixed size.

He listed Iridium as an example of a LEO constellation compared with his LEO mesh network.
Iridium is connection oriented; his approach uses a connectionless packet base.

Routing methods include:
    Snapshots,
    Secondary,
    Route definition,
    Wait in route,
    Link confirmation,
    Synchronization, and
    Prioritization.

He then showed various link descriptions and constellation examples demonstrating the LEO
route dynamics. Fault tolerance is inherent due to the multiple paths.

In his conclusions and in future work, he listed simulation, FPGA, design, snapshot generation,
and ISL technology. An NRO question on precise orbit required was answered with “No.”

Stan Kennedy, Comtech AeroAstro talked to a novel approach for space traffic control. Their
Space Track device and system concept is a sensor enabled notification system (SENS) for
tagging, tracking and locating (TT&L). Communications is via the GlobalStar voice channel
which has 52 satellites operating in L-band in a 1400 km orbit. They have 19 groundstations
around the globe and three more Africa deliveries are planned in early 2010. The system would
provide round the clock orbital position information and satellite bus state of health direc tly to
the bus operator/owner. This significantly reduces the load on current AFSCN and AFSSN
operational uses. He believes this has the ability to track small spacecraft and would provide
valuable information to operators during the critical post separation phase. Kennedy says this
provides an end to end solution to assure uninterrupted service, uses a CAA proprietary data
burst decoder (co-operated with GlobalStar) to provide state of health 100 times per day.

In response to questions, he says that there will be a potential STP experiment by the Air Force.
The current system is simplex, but there is a possible future duplex system if required.

John Ploschnitznig, Riverside Research Institute (RRI) talked to their automated collection
planning tool (ACPT) experience on TacSat-3. He says this is more than just a longitude and
latitude measurement device. RRI was involved in collection planning for the TacSat-3
operations. ACPT was designed for operations using the STK automated system. Humans are out
of the loop. ACPT was a strategic analysis tool developed for MDA. In the MDA application, it
used a targeting set with longitude, latitude and time.

For TacSat-3, the communications is to a Dayton ground station. They provide contact timing
and slewing requirements. Weather is factored in toward cloud-free operations. He describes this
as a sophisticated modeling and simulation tool with mission collection output.

In response to question, he says it’s optimized so targets are prioritized including sun angle, and
geometry, etc.

NGA is doing the planning for the uplink.

Session VII, Operation 2 was chaired by Shahzad Khaliegh.

Joe Bermyn, Verhaert Space, talked to their PROBA-1 Satellite Program. This is a 100 kg
spacecraft with a volume of 80cm X 60cm X 60cm with 125W peak power. It is three axis
stabilized and has four pointing modes for imaging, vegetation studies, disaster monitoring, etc.

Yoram Ilan-Lipovsky, IAF, talked to the Israeli approach for F-15 small satellite launch. He
says the point of view of a small nation is different when talking launch satellites from the west
which is inefficient. He wants to recommend that the next conference be held in Israel. He says
MOU on BMD may be possible to attend close conference sessions. An MOU on responsive
space is desired.

Liposvsky says Israeli industry is open to cooperation. He wants US companies to contact them
toward potential cooperative arrangements.

Bill Edmonston, Unive rsity of Florida, talked to the role of universities in developing a respon-
sive space industry. He submits that technology can't be developed in twelve months, only
matured. Therefore, he suggests:
     Universities can do innovative research
     Lower cost student labor (~ $40K per year)
     State of the Art equipment is available
     A trained work force is the output.

He further submits that it's not on the same time scale. He lists several examples including
ASTREC Advanced Space Technology and I/U CRC funded by industry, but with N SF funding
for administration. He contends you develop the work force with fundamental applied research
for small spacecraft. He says it’s user inspired research and achieves TRL-4 to 6 said to be
“faster, cheaper, good enough.” He says this is shared IP with industry sponsors and he says the
MOU with AmSat is days away. He also lists SEMATECH as an example. He believes that
about 85% was common with only 15% proprietary. He’s looking for guidance for participation.
He says that in the university environment, failure is an option. Focused R&D can be used to
address ORS needs.

In response to questions, he says the Swamp Sat project is ongoing. He wants the freedom to
push the envelope.

On contact with entrepreneurs, he says they are not doing that yet and they don”t have the
resources, but may at some time in the future.

Joel Hicks, NRL, talked to the Virtual Mission Operations Center (VMOC) and ORS ground
system enterprise. He believes the VMOC is enabling technology for the 2015 ORS end state.
NRL is using the VMOC for the TacSat-4 UHF COMSAT and the ORS-1 support.

VMOC is a spacecraft tasking and mission planning tool. Technologies are current.              In
apportionment, he says, establish the rules
    Mission: manage the sensors
    Tactical: enable diverse users

The result is to provide within hours, the user expected data.

As an example, he says a TacSat-4 user request automatically is updated to the satellite with no
human in the loop. VMOC is a GOTS product minimizing technical risk. Training is being done
in parallel with the ORS-1 development. Accreditation is also ongoing.

For ORS-1 we are told the VMOC is to be deployed to the SOC at Schriever AFB.

In response to questions on the ATO reciprocity process, he says it’s ongoing to the MMSOC
next week.

He says this is only a tasking tool for TacSat-4 and ORS-1. They have done a ground end-to-end

Patrick Waldron, Lockheed Martin, talked to leveraging a multimission satellite operation
center to fulfill operational responsive space ground segment requirements. His talk was focused
on the Multimission Satellite Operation Center (MMSOC) produced at SMC SDTW. He
emphasizes that this utilizes an open satellite ground system architecture which adapts to each
mission needs. It provides a foundation of core capabilities to which mission unique features
may be added to address the needs of specific space missions. He says this is an ongoing Air
Force integration effort led by SDTW and has created a set of “out of the box” capabilities and

The core architecture design is “loosely coupled” and he showed a MMSOC ground system
architecture (GSA) connected to the various functions of satellite engineering, mission planning,
real time contact, flight dynamics and ground infrastructure. The GSA provides the means by
which the other subsystems communicate and interact to accomplish the MMSOC GSA

The real time contact subsystem of the MMSOC GSA receives real time space craft state of
health (SOH) and mission payload data in conduct commanding.

The flight dynamics subsystem performs ground based orbit estimation for vehicles and the
satellite engineering subsystem provides SOH through the processing of telemetry, stored state
of health (SSOH), measurands and command history reports.

He repeats that this is an open system concept. A GSA services guide is available that serves as a
catalog and additionally describes and illustrates products, issued by the 50 th Space Wing. These
services are available through the NIPRNET/SIPRNET, e- mail, etc.

The external ICD focuses on the requirements identified for the GSA. The GSA specific
Interface Control Agreements (ICA) required for the GSA are documented in detail in Appendix
C of the document.

The MMSOC also has an open system management plan that provides a framework for
requiring, managing, developing, operating and providing supportability knowledge required to
deliver responsive satellite operations. They are using the CCSDS protocol.

The Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) ground stations perform the links to the
satellite (S-band). He says they continue to embrace standards and standards development in this
open architecture approach.

In his description of the MMSOC he showed this as a ring within the architecture framework of
architectures with the plug and play space at the center.

In summarizing, he says the MMSOC GSA is a key enabler for today’s ORS missions, reducing
the ground expenditures and creates new and enhanced mission opportunities.

In response to questions, he indicates that this is a Windows ba sed system. As to the “weak link”
he says up to 16 missions can be handled simultaneously, but only two with a 10mbps link will
swamp it.

In his wrap-up comments, Dr. Jim Wertz, Microcosm, says there were about 350 attendees, but
down about 10% from last year. He questions “Have we made any progress?” and “Is eight
enough?” Do we need RS-9?

Wertz highlighted the roles of the various leaders and invited guests thanking all for their
participation. He also thanked the sponsoring industry organizations recommending that
attendees help them out: “send money” and “buy stuff.”

Wertz says “Is there progress?” There has been forward motion in responsive space. Equally
clear we aren’t there yet! It’s been apparent for over a decade that responsive space is technically
available, it’s cheap, it can reduce the fragile character of critical missions and it can lead the
way in reducing costs for all space missions (Pete Rustan’s vision). Further, the Soviets/Russians
have been doing it for 30 years. What isn’t as clear, is whether the United States government
wants any of these things. He also acknowledges the government is not a monolithic whole and
that some are not supportive while many are very supportive. As to more conferences, he says
the answer seems to be “Yes” and, in the future, perhaps with a classified session.

Wertz acknowledges that the RS conferences are fun and a great chance to talk and network, but
questions “Are they useful?” He therefore solicits the attendees and industry comments and
suggestions going forward.

In response to his opportunity for questions, it was suggested that we allocate time for software
sessions and it was also suggested that potential break-out sessions be held for specialties.

In the H. Ivey opinion, it was a successful conference with excellent networking opportunities
with the senior people who are responsible for mo ving responsive space forward. It is also the
H. Ivey opinion that it is way underfunded and that in starving it for funding, or robbing the
funding it has, the government participants (Congress and DoD senior leadership), are severely
hampering the probabilities of success.