Air Force Space Launch Plan Multiplies Risks But Won't Meet Military RequirementsForbes
Loren Thompson, Contributor Nov 27, 2017 @ 10:25 AM
What's wrong with this picture? The head of U.S. Strategic Command said earlier this month that he will no longer support the development of exquisite, billion-dollar satellites -- satellites he described as "big, fat, juicy targets." Meanwhile, the Air Force agency charged with developing military space systems is racing ahead with a "launch service agreement" that requires prospective launch providers to spend big bucks developing a new heavy-lift rocket so they can loft exquisite, billion-dollar satellites into orbit.
What's wrong with the picture is that one part of the Air Force's space community doesn't seem to know what the other part is doing. General John Hyten, the head of Strategic Command, previously ran Air Force Space Command. He presided over the formulation of a new "space enterprise vision" that would make the military's orbital assets more resilient as space is increasingly contested by America's enemies. A big part of that vision involves buying smaller, cheaper satellites in greater numbers so military use of space isn't easily compromised. But nobody at the service's launch directorate seems to have heard about the new vision, so it is pursuing future capabilities that are out of sync with likely needs.
This is just one of several defects in the pending launch service agreement that collectively will make assured access to space less likely even if enemies never attack. The most perverse feature of this situation is that the Pentagon already has assured access to all the orbits it needs to reach, but the pending launch agreement risks destroying that in order to accomplish competing goals that probably aren't achievable. What follows is a brief description of why the Air Force needs to rethink its plan for securing launch services, and some ideas for extricating the service from the decaying orbit into which it is about to place the military space program.
An Atlas V launch vehicle lofts a payload into orbit. If the military abandons big, expensive satellites, this one vehicle would be able to launch virtually all military payloads. But it needs a U.S. engine to replace its current Russian engine. Flickr1. The current plan doesn't match emerging military requirements. Under pressure from Congress to stop using Russian rocket engines for military launches, the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center wants to develop a new generation of launch vehicles that utilizes domestic technology. That part of the plan is laudable, but the center's launch directorate has decided the best way forward is to rely on commercial launch providers who will essentially replicate capabilities already in existence. Much of the money it proposes to spend will go to developing a heavy lift rocket that the new space vision indicates will not be needed. The U.S. already has a highly reliable rocket that can carry out the handful of heavy-lift missions anticipated through 2030, so why is this capability in the plan?
2. The current plan depends on commercial demand that won't exist. The last time the Air Force funded development of new launch vehicles, its plan was to save money by leveraging projected commercial demand for space launches. That demand never materialized, and the plan had to be changed. Now it has returned to the same dubious assumption that there will be robust demand for the services of commercial launch providers from private companies going forward. There won't be. Only eight commercial communications satellites have been ordered worldwide this year and there are at least that many launch providers -- including several that are subsidized by foreign governments. The Air Force is repeating the mistakes of the past.
3. The current plan adds no capability, just risk. United Launch Alliance already operates two vehicles -- Atlas V and Delta IV -- that together can reach all of the national-security reference orbits (co-owners Boeing and Lockheed Martin contribute to my think tank). ULA has never had a launch failure in 120 attempts. Under the current plan, though, both of these vehicles will be replaced by a family of "Vulcan" vehicles funded in part by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. They will be powered by the biggest methane engines ever built, and their future reliability is unknowable. What we do know is that new rocket engines and vehicles are being developed on an aggressive schedule because Russian engines can't be used beyond 2022 and Delta is scheduled to retire shortly thereafter.
4. The current plan probably costs money rather than saving it. The space launch agreement was fashioned to rely on competing commercial providers in order to save money. But likely savings to the government by going this route are only about a billion dollars over many years, or two hours of federal spending at current rates. If even one big satellite is lost due to getting off reliable legacy rockets, that could eat up all the savings. SpaceX, a recent market entrant, would end up being the U.S. company with the best-established track record in the launch business. Everybody else would be operating new engines and/or vehicles selected by the Air Force years before they were certified. The inherent risk of this situation would likely translate into much higher costs than currently projected.
There are some simple fixes to the Air Force's current space launch plan that could reduce costs and risks. For instance, if United Launch Alliance were to substitute Aeroject Rocketdyne's new engine for the Russian engine in the workhorse Atlas V rather than developing a new launch vehicle, then it could avoid the risk of operating an unproven vehicle on future missions (Aerojet contributes to my think tank). It would also mitigate the risk associated with a new engine because the Aerojet system relies on mature technology and the competing Bezos engine does not. Unlike the Bezos engine, the Aerojet offering was designed to fit into the Atlas V vehicle.
Similarly, if the military and the intelligence community really intend to stop buying exquisite, billion-dollar satellites, then it doesn't make much sense to develop a new heavy lifter for the handful of national security missions requiring one between now and 2030. It would make much more sense just to buy a few more Delta IV rockets, which at present are the only launch vehicles proven capable of lofting the heaviest payloads into the highest orbits. What the Air Force really needs to do right now, though, is stop and ask itself why it is taking on so much risk to pursue an arrangement that doesn't even seem matched to future military requirements. The joint force could lose assured access to space long before war in space becomes a reality.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/11/27/air-force-space-launch-plan-multiplies-risks-but-wont-meet-military-requirements/
New SMAC quizzes available.
