 |
| Purchase Information |
| Use this form to request purchase information on AIAA online subscriptions. |
|
|
Document AIAA R-099 is offered by IHS as part of an online subscription. This subscription contains many documents on the same topic.
You may also purchase this document alone from the IHS Standards Store.
AIAA R-099 Document Information:
Title
Space Launch Integration
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Publication Date:
Jan 1, 2001
Scope:
Introduction
General
Critical to establishing the required scope of space launch
integration (SLI) for a spacecraft (SC) program is fully
understanding the complexity and criticality of the specific SC
system and performing a comprehensive assessment of the risks
associated with launch. A considered approach should be one that
includes:
• An understanding of the consequence of launch failure
• A process to identify and handle risk commensurate with the
established risk tolerance
Essential elements of any launch integration effort are clearly
defining the roles and responsibilities of the organizations
involved and ensuring the contracts and supporting agreements are
consistent and in place before beginning the integration
effort.
A SC customer or launch service customer must determine the
level of insight and/or oversight that will be applied to the space
launch integration process. As part of the determination, the
customer or sponsoring organization must weigh the value of
applying oversight in his efforts to mitigate the risk of a launch
failure.
Commercial SC objectives are primarily focused on establishment
of a revenue stream when the SC achieves its operational orbit.
Commercial SC are based largely on existing, evolving, commercially
available SC buses, with payloads designed to achieve specific
commercial program objectives. The time frame for the integration
and launch of a commercial SC can vary from several months to
several years, depending on the maturity of the SC and launch
vehicle (LV) systems, and the complexity of the SC-to-launch system
interfaces. The space launch integration community for these types
of programs is typically comprised of the launch service provider,
the SC manufacturer, the SC customer, the launch range operator,
and sometimes a launch service integration contractor (LSIC).
Commercial SC may be comparatively less expensive and able to be
replaceable in the event of a launch or on-orbit failure.
National defense, scientific, and experimental SC, on the other
hand, are typically designed to fulfill a specific mission, and
generally comprise unique SC bus and payload configurations
designed to achieve specific mission objectives of national
interest. These SC are typically one-of-a-kind in nature, very
expensive, and require a significant span time to replace in the
event of a launch failure. Additionally, a launch failure may
result in a lost opportunity to achieve a specific mission
objective, as in the case of an interplanetary SC, or may result in
a reduction in national defense capabilities, as in the case of a
national defense SC. SC such as these typically involve complex,
unique interface requirements relative to the LV system, and as a
result, may require a space launch integration span time of several
years. These SC systems typically trend toward increased levels of
oversight into the launch integration process, involving numerous
organizations. These organizations may include customers, SC
contractors, launch system integration contractors, LV contractors,
launch service program offices, independent validation and
verification contractors, and LV and SC technical advisory
contractors. The purpose of these contractor organizations is to
mitigate risk and enhance mission success.
In summary, mission assurance for commercial SC typically relies
on balancing risk, which may be revenue, with the cost of
insurance. For missions with national security or science
implications, the risk associated with loss of mission is entirely
different and must be addressed appropriately. Additionally, each
program should have a clear understanding of and an established
method of "insight" and "oversight," the cost and schedule
implications of each, and a mechanism in place that accommodates
implementation of either or both, as appropriate, to achieve the
required level of risk mitigation.
There are various methods/approaches to accomplish space launch
integration. The level of effort required for any launch
integration process is dependent on many variables:
• Maturity of the systems involved
• Complexity of the interfaces
• Security implications
• Risk tolerance
Careful consideration should be given to each of these areas and
a decision made as to the accommodation of each in the space launch
integration process. As an additional consideration, there are
various perspectives regarding the best method and approach to
launch integration. The perspective will vary with the various
organizations involved and their respective roles and
responsibilities. Relevant background information on various
aspects of the integration process is included herewith in Annexes
A, B, C, D, and E.
Mission
The overarching consideration for any program is the SC mission
objective. The achievement of this objective establishes the
requirement(s) for the SC design and drives the launch integration
process. Careful consideration must be given to each element
involved in the program, factoring in the perspective of each
element and developing a method to accommodate each, as
appropriate, for the specific program.
Customer Perspective
The customer's goal during the integration and launch phase of a
program is to deliver a functional payload with fully operational
satellite bus to an orbit that meets mission objectives. The launch
service is of secondary concern to the SC customer. It is natural
for each organization, customer/payload designer, upper stage
designer, launch service provider, and launch facility operator to
consider its own area of interest as having the highest priority.
However, the primary objective for all parties involved should be
to deliver the SC to the correct orbit, within all environmental
constraints, and to maximize the probability that mission
objectives will be achieved.
SC Perspective
From the SC perspective, launch is the single most traumatic
event in the life of the program. The launch environment generally
presents the most severe conditions that the SC will experience.
These conditions drive many aspects of the SC design, especially
the SC structural design. Launch constraints often present design
challenges, which require complicated design solutions to fit
within a confined payload fairing (PLF) envelope and provide for
post-launch operations. Low-mass design techniques and mass
conservation measures may be required to stay within LV performance
capabilities.
Recommended Practice: Because of these
technical challenges, it is in the best interest of the SC
contractor to have early and reliable definition of LV interfaces
and available SC accommodations as well as performance capability
to the desired orbit.
Recommended Practice: Changing launch
requirements will affect SC program costs and schedule, especially
when they occur late in the cycle. Hence it is advisable during the
early design SC process to make sure it is compatible with more
than one type or class of LVs to preclude excessive delays due to
the stand-down of one. A spacecraft design that is compatible with
several LVs can also be used on different mission applications,
which can be very beneficial with regards to both cost and schedule
savings.
Launch Systems Integrator Perspective
For security or other specific purposes as described in Section
1, certain programs require the involvement of a launch systems
integration contractor (LSIC) to represent the SC contractor in the
launch integration process. In these programs, the LSIC becomes the
designated interface between the SC and launch service communities.
The LSIC represents the SC side of the SC-to-LV interface and is
accountable to its customer to define all interface requirements
and certify that they are properly verified. This responsibility
includes coordinating the development of integration schedules and
plans, specifying SC requirements, performing interface
verification, and coordinating integration activities with all
participating contractors. Because a separate LSIC does add
significant overhead and cost to a program, it should be used only
after careful consideration.
If employed, the LSIC is responsible for mission success of the
SC-to-LV interface for all phases from pre-launch through orbital
insertion and SC separation. The LSIC may co-chair the technical
working groups with the launch service provider for the purpose of
developing the SC-to-LV interface and certifying completion of the
verification tasks for the SC-to-LV interface requirements.
Launch Service Provider Perspective
The launch service provider is responsible for the launch system
design, production, and delivery, ensuring that the launch system
capabilities accommodate the agreed-upon SC/LV interface
requirements. The launch service provider is responsible for the
integration and checkout of the launch system components, launch
operations, and LV ascent through orbit insertion and subsequent
disposal, or return, activities. The launch service provider, in
conjunction with the SC contractor and customer, and other launch
integration participants as necessary, implements and verifies the
SC-to-LV interface requirements.
For missions that use a LSIC, the launch service provider
fulfills the role of the launch vehicle integration contractor
(LVIC), representing the launch system side of the interface, with
the responsibility of certifying that the launch system will
successfully place the SC in its desired mission orbit. The LVIC
co-chairs the technical working groups with the LSIC for the
SC-to-LV interface and conducts the verification tasks for the LV
side of the interface. Specifically, the LVIC publishes and
maintains the SC-to-LV interface control document (ICD) and plans
and conducts verification of launch system side of the SC-to-LV
interface requirements. In addition, the LVIC maintains the ICD
verification database and closure library, archives all the
evidence used for verification closure, and in the absence of a
LSIC represents the final approval authority on all verification
closures for the ICD.
Space Launch Integration Process
The success or failure of a mission may be related to the launch
integration or it may be attributable to some other aspect of the
launch operation. A rigorous, comprehensive launch integration
process will not guarantee a successful mission but it will reduce
the risk that a SC-to-LV interface anomaly will cause a mission
failure. The key is to develop a process that will reduce risks
inherent in the launch integration process to an acceptable level.
Identifying all the risks and establishing the acceptable level for
each risk is much easier said than done. It is especially difficult
for complex interfaces and where multiple systems are involved.
Another consideration is that, for some missions, cost and schedule
considerations are secondary to the need for reducing the risk of
failure to the absolute minimum.
Recommended Practice: It is therefore critical
that a comprehensive and clearly defined process be established as
early as possible, using a formal risk-management/risk-mitigation
process, as discussed in the Mission Assurance/Risk Management
section of this document. Once the risks are understood, at least
at the program level, a determination can be made as to the level
of launch integration required to address these risks.
The launch integration process must address other interfaces to
the SC; e.g., with transportation systems, processing facilities,
launch site facilities, and flight operations centers. The process
must incorporate required safety policies and practices into all
aspects of the integration process. The responsibility for covering
each of these areas can be assigned to one contractor or divided
among multiple contractors, depending on the customer requirements,
complexity of the interfaces, and contractor agreements.
Recommended Practice: A comprehensive launch
integration process begins with assessing the compatibility of SC
system interface requirements relative to launch system
capabilities and focusing on interface issue resolution to minimize
overall cost to the customer, while emphasizing risk mitigation in
interface design to enhance mission success. The process culminates
with the successful delivery of an operational SC to the desired
orbit.
For highly complex missions, the launch integration
organizational structure may include various agencies representing
the SC contractor, LV contractor, payload contractor(s), and launch
site. In addition, vehicle and support contractors as well as
consultants may be involved. This participation will vary depending
on the "oversight" and "insight" required by the sponsoring
organization. For some programs, the customer may want one
contractor to provide the total mission service where delivery of
an operational SC to the specified orbit is the contractual
requirement. Other customers may require a SC contractor, a LV
contractor, and a LSIC.
Figure 1 illustrates the basic launch integration process
involving a LSIC. This process begins with technical and
operational interface requirements that typically flow from the
spacecraft vehicle contractor (SVC), through the LSIC (if one is
being used), then to the LVIC. Return flow consists of capability
assessments, which include updated design information. These
assessments go back through the LSIC to the SVC, thus completing a
single iteration of the integration process that will eventually
lead to the definition of a compatible interface. Formal
documentation and control of the agreed interfaces is established
in an ICD, as described in Section 5, Requirements and
Verification. This process forms an active loop supported by trade
studies, analyses, and impact assessments performed, as required,
by the various contractors. This loop is closed only when a
compatible interface is achieved.
About IHS
IHS (NYSE: IHS) is a leading global provider of critical technical information, decision-support tools and related services in a number of industries including aerospace and defense, automotive, construction, electronics, and energy. IHS serves customers ranging from large governments and multinational corporations to smaller companies and technical professionals in more than 100 countries. IHS been in business for more than 45 years and employ more than 2,300 people around the world.
