Download - Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
Affordability Through InnovationAffordability Through Innovation
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
Briefing to 1998 National Space SymposiumBriefing to 1998 National Space SymposiumCatching a Ride to Orbit SessionCatching a Ride to Orbit Session
Col Richard McKinneyCol Richard McKinneySystem Program DirectorSystem Program Director
2
Overview
í Program Background
• Acquisition Strategy Change
• Summary
3
EELV Mission Statement
• Mission:
– Partner with Industry to develop a national launch capabilitythat satisfies the Government’s national mission modelrequirements and reduces the cost of space launch by at least25%
• Objectives:
– Increase the U.S. space launch industry’s competitiveness inthe international space launch market
– Implement acquisition reform initiatives resulting in reducedgovernment resources necessary to manage systemdevelopment and acquire launch services
4
FY94 DefenseAppropriations Act
Tasking
Background
Space LaunchModernization Plan(SLMP) [May 94];Gen Moorman,
Chairman
Options:
(1) Sustain currentsystems
(2) Evolve currentexpendablesystems
(3) Develop new“clean sheet”expendable system
(4) Develop a newreusable system
EELV
Department of Defense (DoD)IntelligenceCivilIndustryALS
NLS
SPACE-LIFTER
$650M INVESTMENT
Nat'l Space TransPolicy(PDD/NSTC-4)[5 Aug 94]
DoDImplementationPlan [25 Oct 94]supported Opt. 2
ALS - Advanced Launch SystemNLS - National Launch SystemPDD - Presidential DecisionDirectiveNSTC - National SpaceTransportation Council
5
EELV Contractors’ System Concepts
6
Drivers to EELV Program
• Key Performance Parameters:
– Launch National Mission Model
– Design Reliability
– Standardized Launch Pads
– Standard Vehicle Interface
• Cost
– Probably first time a space program has cost as THE driver
– Direct Impact to Warfighter
7
Overview
• Program Background
í Acquisition Strategy Change
• Summary
8
Acquisition Strategy
• Original acquisition strategy formulated in early 1995– Strategy called for downselecting to one contractor
Contractor provides a family of launch vehicles to supportGovernment requirements
Contractor in a position to capture a larger share of theinternational commercial launch market
• Other features of original strategy:
– Cost-type contract for Engineering & ManufacturingDevelopment (EMD) contract
– Two system test flights during EMD
• Approach in strategy revised on 6 Nov 97
9
Why Change Strategy?
Larger commercial marketthan envisioned two years
ago
Sufficient market tosupport two contractors
Gov’t leverage commercial market competition
Industry InvolvementIndustry Involvement
10
Why Change Strategy?Changes Since the “Moorman Study”
1994, SPACE LAUNCH MOD. PLAN TODAY
Future med/heavy launch marketdominated by government
Launch market dominated bycommercial market
Little potential in commercial marketfor growth or economy
Tremendous growth potential incommercial market
Conclusion: too many launchproviders/production capacity
Conclusion: sufficient market tosupport two EELV concepts
Recommendation: reduce industrialoverhead; downsize; reduce nichemarkets; DoD pursue innovativeincentives
Recommendation: Partner withindustry to develop EELV family;leverage competition in commercialmarkets
Led to single EELV contractordeveloping a modular family ofvehicles
Leads to two competing EELVcontractors over life of program forcommercial launch services
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
1994
1997
Low
High
Most
Likely
Actual
COMSTAC AddressableCommercial Geosynchronous Transfer
Orbit (GTO) Market
Lau
nch
es p
er Y
ear
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
'88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
Actual
Lau
nch
es p
er Y
ear
Predictions Averaged Over Period
Why Change Strategy?COMSTAC Addressable Commercial GTO Market
13
Commercial Space Market Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1986 1991 1996 2000
Services
User Equip
Satellite
Launch
Does not includeGovernment spendingwhich was $38B in1996 and projected tobe $40B in 2000
The
n Y
ear
$Bill
ion
14
Summary of Strategy Change
Old
• Cost-type contract for EMD
• Two system test flights
• Downselect to one
• Production
New
• Fixed Gov’t investment fordevelopment in addition tocontractor investment
• No system test flights
• Compete two over life of program
• Launch services
15
EELV Acquisition Schedule
MS 0
TAILORED
PDR
FY95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
MS I MS II
PDR - Preliminary Design Review RFP - Request for Proposal CFI - Call For Improvements SRR - Systems Requirements ReviewDDR - Down-select Design Review LCCV - Low Cost Concept Validation TCDR - Tailored Critical Design Review
Pre-EMD
CFI RFPRFP
DDR
LCCV15 Months4 Contracts
TAILORED
SRRTCDR
MS III
Development - 2 Contractors17 Months
2 Ktrs
Follow-on Launch Services
First Flights(Commercial/Military)
Initial Launch Services - 2 Contractors
16
Overview
• Program Background
• Acquisition Strategy Change
í Summary
17
SummaryWhat Does This Mean to You?
• Ensures two viable U.S. providers of launch services, eachwith a Government business base
• U.S. becomes more competitive in international market andcaptures a greater market share
• EELV will reduce the cost of space launch
Affordability Through InnovationAffordability Through Innovation