SPACECAST 2020 was a chief of staff of the Air Force (CSAF)-directed space study,
challenged to identify and conceptually develop high-leverage space technologies and
systems that will best support the warfighter in the twenty-first century. The study was
composed of officers, airmen, and civilians from institutions within Air University and
assisted by outside advisory groups made up of the Air Force major command vice
commanders, senior retired military officers and distinguished civilians, and technical
experts throughout the Department of Defense and civil/commercial laboratories. This is
the fourth of four monographs: Executive Summary, The SPACECAST 2020 Process, The
World of 2020 and Alternative Futures, and Operational Analysis.
DISCLAIMER
SPACECAST 2020 was a study done in compliance with a directive from the CSAF to examine the
capabilities and technologies for 2020 and beyond to preserve the security of the US. Presented on 22 June
1994, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment in the interest of
academic freedom and the advancement of national defense-related concepts. The views expressed in this
report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air
Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
OPERATIONAL
ANALYSIS
Air University Air Education and Training Command United States Air Force
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Executive Summary
This analysis was conducted to determine which of the SPACECAST 2020 systems
concepts showed the greatest potential for enhancing space operations, and which of their
embedded technologies have the highest leverage in making high-value systems a reality.
The analytical expertise was provided by the Department of Operational Sciences at the
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT); technology assessments were done by the
SPACECAST 2020 Technology Team and practical operational judgments were provided
by Air War College and Air Command and Staff College faculty and students. A Value
Model was developed based on Joint Space Doctrine to quantify and compare different
systems' contributions to various space capabilities. The overall goal of operational
analysis was to rank SPACECAST systems and their enabling technologies in a way that
was traceable and reflected the value SPACECAST participants attributed to them. Thus,
the model presented is an aid to senior decision makers.
Scoring the SPACECAST systems against the Value Model revealed that two system
concepts were clearly ahead of the rest:
Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV)
Space-Based High Energy Laser (HEL) System
These two systems scored at about the same high level, but for different reasons. The
TAV contributed to virtually all space missions because it made access to space easier.
The HEL scored well because it could fulfill a variety of important force application and
space defense missions, and its optical system could also provide a surveillance
capability. The following five systems also scored clearly ahead of the others, but below
the top two:
Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting (GSRT) System
Orbit Transfer Vehicle (OTV)
Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) System
High Powered Microwave (HPMW) System
Particle Beam (PB) Weapon System
The Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting System was assessed as a
high-leverage system because of its ability to greatly enhance the capabilities of terrestrial
forces. The high score of the OTV reflects the importance of improved spacelift, along
with the top-scoring TAV. The next three systems are space-based weapons that scored
well for reasons similar to those of the HEL. These conclusions regarding the rankings of
the systems were not affected by any reasonable changes of the weighting scheme in the
Value Model.
The study also included an assessment of the technologies on which the system
concepts depend. The analysis explicitly took into account the number of systems each
technology supported, the degree to which each system depended on it, and the
importance of the system (but not cost or risk). Three technologies (including the two top
ranked ones) stood out because they are important to a large number of high-value
systems:
High-Performance Computing
Micro-Mechanical Devices
Navigation, Guidance, and Vehicle Control
Three other technologies were also especially important, but to a smaller range of
systems:
Materials Technology
Pulsed Power Systems
Robotics, Controllers, and End-Effectors
Advances in these areas show promise to open the way to space systems that would
dramatically improve the effectiveness of space operations.
Purpose of the Analysis
SPACECAST 2020 produced a large number of system concepts which were
envisioned in varying levels of detail, which provided widely different kinds of
operational capabilities, and which depended on different levels of advancement in
different areas beyond current technology. Clearly not all of these system concepts can
be developed, nor can all of the technologies be aggressively pursued. The Air Force
needs to prioritize the relative importance of both space systems and technologies. This
operational analysis was conducted to answer two basic questions:
1. Which of the SPACECAST 2020 system concepts offer the greatest promise of
increasing operational effectiveness?
2. What are the technologies offering the greatest leverage in turning high-value
system concepts into operational realities?
Challenge
This operational analysis presented two major technical challenges. The first was that
it required estimating the performance of future space systems that are incompletely
defined and which often rely on technology that does not yet exist. This meant that
inevitably the only data available by which to evaluate them were qualitative human
judgments. The team's approach to this challenge was to break the analysis down into
many separate evaluations. Even though some individual judgments may lack rigorous
precision, the weighted sum of all the judgments will have enough precision for the
purposes of the analysis.1 The second major challenge came from the fact that the
analysis required comparison of alternatives that are inherently different sorts of things.
For instance, the system concepts included space launch systems, weapon systems, and
surveillance systems. It was necessary to rate these different concepts on some sort of
common scale so they could be compared to one another. The team's approach was to
score the alternatives according to their estimated contribution to operational
effectiveness, with effectiveness in different areas of space operations being weighted
according to their value with respect to space operations as a whole. The details of the
methods used to face these two challenges are described below (see Methodology).
In addition to these technical challenges, the analysis team operated under some
practical limitations. The conclusions of this analysis should be considered with these
limitations in mind: the White Paper system, the Joint Space Doctrine framework, the
members of the team, and the time available.
The ground rules of the study were to evaluate the systems and technologies
presented in a given set of White Papers. Consequently, the scope of the study was
limited to those systems and technologies. It is possible other important systems could be
developed which would draw attention to other technologies. These could be evaluated
using the methodology of this study. However, the scope of this study was limited to the
SPACECAST White Papers presented.
The team used the framework of current Joint Space Doctrine to develop the Value
Model. While this provided an excellent start, it is based on current ideas about space
operations. It did not allow evaluating systems' contributions to space missions that are
not currently envisioned.
The analysis relied to a large extent on human judgments about the systems and
technologies. These judgments came from a broad selection of students and faculty from
the Air Force Institute of Technology, the School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Air
War College, and Air Command and Staff College. The collective experience,
knowledge, and judgment of these individuals were vital to the successful outcome of the
study. Finally, the analysis had to be completed within a time period of about four
weeks. This is an extremely short time for a problem of this complexity.
Methodology
A wide range of techniques exists to approach a problem like this. The most
important tradeoff in picking a technique is depth of analysis versus time. At one
extreme, a group of experts can review the alternatives and give a subjective ranking of
them. At the other extreme, a full Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis can be
done, as is usually done before starting development of a major new program. The
analysis team selected an approach called Value-Focused Thinking as most appropriate
for the task at hand.2 It allowed the alternatives to be evaluated at an appropriate level of
detail, considering their level of definition, and could be completed within the time
available for analysis. Value-Focused Thinking requires creating a Value Model of the
qualities valued in the alternatives. In this analysis, the alternatives were the proposed
system concepts and the qualities were various measures related to operational
effectiveness in space. This Value Model takes the form of a hierarchy, starting from
broad categories at the top level and specifying the desired qualities in greater detail at
lower levels, striving for qualities as concrete as possible and where possible quantifiable.
The alternatives are then scored against the qualities at the lowest level of the hierarchy.
The qualities are assigned weights based on their overall contribution to the value system,
and an alternative's final score is found by multiplying its quality scores by the
appropriate weights and summing over all qualities. This gives a rational, traceable,
objective, and quantifiable basis for ranking the alternatives. In this analysis, a single
system making revolutionary contributions to a very narrow area of activity may score
lower than a system making contributions to a large number of areas.
In addition to ranking the system concepts, the operational analysis also had to
identify high-leverage technologies whose advancement offers the greatest promise of
increasing the effectiveness of space operations. To address this part of the problem, the
analysis team evaluated each system concept on the degree to which it depended on
advances in various technologies. This produced a system-versus-technology weight
matrix. By multiplying it with system scores derived from the Value Model, the relative
weights for the technologies were found. This provided a comprehensive method of
ranking the various technologies according to the degree to which they supported the
most important system concepts. To reduce the technology ranking problem to a
manageable size and to focus on its most essential features, a few modifications were
made to this procedure, as will be described below.
In summary, this was the general method of the analysis: A Value Model was devised
to define the desired force qualities. All systems were scored against all qualities,
producing a system-versus-quality matrix. The scores were multiplied by the quality
weights and summed, giving system scores. This scoring was used to rank the different
system concepts. In addition, a system-versus-technology matrix was developed as
described in the preceding paragraph. When multiplied by the system scores, this
provided a ranking of the technologies.
Developing the Value Model
The Value Model hierarchy was based on draft JCS Pub 3-14, "Military Space
Operations Doctrine," 15 April 1994. That document states that the overall goal of
military space operations is to control and exploit space. It provides the top two levels of
a value hierarchy for space operations and lists four basic types of space operations:
| Force Enhancement: | Assisting terrestrial military forces |
| Force Application: | Applying military force for ballistic missile defense, for defense of terrestrial forces, or directly against enemy targets |
| Space Control: | Monitoring space activity, defending against attacks in space, and negating hostile space systems |
| Space Support: | Launch, satellite control, and logistics operations |
In addition, each area of operations is divided into appropriate force capabilities. For
instance, under Force Enhancement there are Communications; Navigation and
Positioning; Intelligence and Surveillance; Environmental Monitoring; Mapping,
Charting, and Geodesy; and Warning, Processing, and Dissemination.3 There were
advantages and disadvantages to using this structure. The major disadvantage was that it
did not include a few possible future space missions, such as planetary defense against
asteroid impact. On the other hand, it provided an official and authoritative doctrinal
architecture comprehensive enough to include all current and the most important future
space missions. This seemed to be the best available starting place for the Value Model.
Each of the force capabilities from draft JCS Pub 3-14 was analyzed further to
provide a listing of force qualities. These force qualities were the most important
characteristics required for operational effectiveness in each capability. As far as
possible, they were selected to be concrete and measurable. For instance, the force
qualities defined under Communications were Crisis Availability, Capacity,
Interoperability, and Security. These force qualities provided a third and in some cases a
fourth level of the value hierarchy. An illustration of the top levels of the hierarchy is
shown in Figure 1. The complete Value Model is found in the first six columns of the
matrix in Appendix 1. The final hierarchy had 98 detailed force qualities or line items at
the lowest level of the hierarchy.4 It was these line items at the lowest levels of the
hierarchy that were used to develop measures of merit against which the systems were
scored (see Scoring the Systems).
In addition to defining a value hierarchy, it was necessary to assign relative weights to
the line items. The challenge here was to assign relative weights in a sensible way to
force qualities that are different. This was done by assigning weights at each level of the
hierarchy. First, weights were assigned at the top level, to each of the four areas of
military space operations. Then, for each of the four, weights were assigned for the
subordinate force capabilities, and so on down the hierarchy. To make the workload
manageable, sub-teams were asked to look at every branch point and estimate the relative
weights of the items at the next level.5 Each weighting was reviewed by a high-level
team, occasionally modified slightly, and incorporated in the larger model. The weights
were normalized, i.e., scaled so that all the weights at any one level sum to one. The
weight of each line item is then the product of all its inherited weights up the hierarchy.
As a mathematical consequence of the normalization, the weights of all line items sum to
one.
The "standard" value weights are listed in the Value Model in the first six columns of
the matrix in Appendix 1. These values represent the team's judgment of the relative
value of the force qualities if the future geopolitical system is more or less similar to
today (the "SPACECAST 2020 World"). The weights were also estimated for a "Rogue
World" scenario, a world in which there are one or a few aggressive, militarized, and
sufficiently technologically capable states that are the main threat to world peace. These
weights are in Appendix 2. Other weights were also used when performing a sensitivity
analysis as described below (see Key Results).
System Identification
Following a thorough review of the SPACECAST 2020 White Papers, the
Technology Team identified 19 unique high-leverage space systems (Appendix 3) from
which key technology areas could be identified. For this operations analysis, a system
was defined to be "a functionally related group of elements that performs a mission or
task." Although most of the identified systems were each extracted from a single white
paper, several systems, particularly those involving space weaponry, were critical to the
capabilities detailed in several of the papers. For example, space-based high energy laser
systems were key elements of the white papers on offensive counterspace, defensive
counterspace, and force application, and also contributed heavily to the capabilities called
out in the paper entitled "Leveraging the Infosphere: Surveillance and Reconnaissance in
2020." In several of the papers, such as the one entitled "Projecting Information Power in
War and Peace," no systems could be identified. In these cases, the papers contained a
general framework for doing business in given mission areas without a level of detail
required for technology identification.
The 19 identified systems were:
1. Refueled Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV)
2. Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV)
3. Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OW)
4. Space Modular System(s)
5. Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting System (GSRT)
6. Super Global Positioning System (S-GPS)
7. Space Traffic Control System (SPATRACS)
8. Weather Forecasting System
9. Space-Based Solar Monitoring and Alert Satellite System (SAUSS)
10. Ionospheric Forecasting System
11. Holographic Projector
12. Space-Based High Energy Laser (HEL) System
13. Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) System
14. High Powered Microwave (HPMW) System
15. Particle Beam (PB) Weapon System
16. Weather C3 System
17. Solar Mirror System
18. Asteroid Detection System
19. Asteroid Negation System
The full descriptions of these systems are found in Appendix 3.
Scoring the Systems
Scoring 19 systems against 98 line items required 1,862 judgments. A structure was
developed to maximize the consistency and objectivity of the judgments. Before any
systems were scored, a measure of merit was defined for each line item. This was a
specific and where possible quantifiable measure of that quality, such as "megabits per
second" or 'pounds to orbit." (In a few cases a line item was given two measures of
merit.) Four benchmark levels of operational capability were established for each
measure of merit, as shown below.
| Operational Capability | Score |
| Current | 1 |
| Minor Improvement | 2 |
| Significant Improvement | 6 |
| Order-of-Magnitude Improvement | 10 |
For instance, the measure of merit for line item 2 (communications capacity) was
"decompressed megabits per second" on a satellite communications link. The team's
assessment was that a typical current figure was 300 megabits per second, a minor
improvement would be 600 megabits per second, a significant improvement would be
one gigabit (1,000 megabits) per second, and three gigabits per second per link would be
an order of magnitude improvement. These assessments relate the measure of merit to
operational effectiveness, and an order of magnitude improvement in effectiveness may
not occur at the same point as an order of magnitude (factor of 10) increase in the raw
measure of merit. These assessments were connected to a normalized numerical scale by
equating current capabilities to 1, minor improvements to 2, significant improvements to
6, and order of magnitude improvements to 10. Both the measures of merit and the
operational effectiveness benchmarks were developed by the teams of Air University
students and faculty that defined the Value Model. Once the scoring scale had been
established in this way, the 19 systems were each scored according to its capability to
contribute to the 98 force qualities that the team identified.6
Short descriptions of the measures of merit and the four benchmark levels of each are
presented in columns 7 through 11 of the matrices in Appendix 1. Full descriptions of the
unclassified measures of merit are in Appendix 4. The scores of each system on each line
item are listed in Appendix 5, which also gives the systems' raw scores. For technical
reasons it was convenient to use a scale running from 0 to 100 percent when doing the
score calculations. These are the scores shown in the appendices. However, in the Value
Model of this analysis, a low score corresponds not to zero capability but to current
capability. After the system scores were calculated on the zero-to-one scale, they were
re-scaled so they fell into the more intuitive range where 1.0 represents "current
capability" and 10.0 represents "order of magnitude improvement."
Two systems could not be scored because they did not fit into the structure of the
Value Model. These were the Holographic Projection (#11) and Asteroid Negation (#19)
systems. The teams judgment is that these systems are so far in the future that the
inability to score them did not afflict the validity of the analysis.
Technology Identification
Once the 19 unique systems contained in the white papers were identified, the
SPACECAST 2020 Technology Team qualitatively analyzed each system to identify
which technology development areas would be key to achieving the stated system
capabilities. The team felt it was highly desirable to identify and group technologies
according to a well-known "gold-standard." Thus, the DoD document entitled The
Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL) was used as the basis for key technology
identification in each system.7 For the 19 systems evaluated, a total of 25 key technology
areas (Appendix 6) were identified. One technology area, virtual reality, was repeatedly
mentioned in numerous white papers, but was not explicitly identified in the MCTL.
Although called out as a specific technology area, virtual reality is in actuality a
combination of several of the technologies called out in the MCTL.
Following are the key technologies identified (full descriptions are in Appendix 6):
1. Data Fusion
2. Electromagnetic Communications
3. Energetic Materials
4. Hard Real-Time Systems
5. High Energy Laser Systems
6. High Performance Computing
7. High Power Microwave Systems
8. Image Processing
9. Information Security
10. Kinetic Energy Systems
11. Lasers
12. Liquid Rocket Propulsion
13. Materials Technology
14. Micro-mechanical Devices
15. Navigation, Guidance, and Vehicle Control
16. Neutral Particle Beam (NPB) Systems
17. Nonchemical High Specific Impulse Propulsion
18. Optics
19. Power Systems and Energy Conversion
20. Pulsed Power Systems
21. Robotics, Controllers, and End-Effectors
22. Sensors
23. Spacecraft Structures
24. Vehicle Survivability
25. Virtual Reality
To eventually rank technologies by their impact on future space capabilities, the team
assigned a relative weight to each technology embedded in a particular system as shown
in Appendix 7. The weights selected sum to 100 for each system, and so can be thought
of as percentages of the system's dependence on each technology. For example, the five
Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) technologies were weighted as follows:
| Technology | Weight |
| Nonchemical/High Specific Impulse Propulsion | 40 |
| Power Systems and Energy Conversion | 20 |
| Micro-mechanical Devices | 20 |
| Robotics, Controllers, and End-Effectors | 15 |
| Materials Technology | 5 |
In this case, since the primary mission of the OTV is to act as a space "tug" for
moving satellites between higher and lower orbits, the highest-leverage technology area is
that of the vehicle's primary propulsion subsystem. The other four technologies, although
still critical to effective system performance, were of lesser leverage than that of the
primary propulsion subsystem. Using this methodology, once all of the systems were
scored in the model, the 25 technology areas could be ranked as to their overall impact on
future space operations.
Scoring the Technologies
Once the system-versus-technology matrix is in hand, the procedure for scoring the
technologies is straightforward. For each technology, its contribution to each system is
multiplied by the system score, and the resulting products are summed across all systems.
The result is a set of technology scores (in arbitrary units) taking into account both the
technologies' degree of contribution to future space systems and the importance of those
systems to space operations.
Key Results
Scoring the Systems
The results of the system scoring are summarized in Figure 2. The vertical axis is the
rescaled score from the system evaluation (1.0 represents current capability; 10.0 would
represent an order of magnitude improvement in operational effectiveness across all force
qualities). The horizontal axis is a rank ordering of the systems according to the team's
assessment of the degree of advance in current technology the system would require.
This is not a quantitative measure; it was done to give an impression of how far in the
future the systems lie.8 The system scores are shown using the "SPACECAST 2020
World" weights, the Value Model force quality weights the team felt were most likely to
represent the most likely future. The system scores were also calculated using four other
weighting schemes. The first was the Rogue World weights. Three weighting schemes
were taken by changing the weights at the highest level of the hierarchy to represent the
extreme views of members of the team. The sets of weights were chosen that put the
most weight on Force Enhancement (FE) and on Force Application (FA), plus a scheme
that put no weight on Space Support (SS). Finally, a survey was given to Air University
students asking them to provide top-level weights and the 44 responses were averaged.
The results of all these different weight schemes are shown in Table 1. The resulting
spread of
Table 1. Sensitivity Analysis Weighting Schemes
| Scheme | Force Enhancement | Force Application | Space Control | Space Support |
| Standard | 0.37 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| Rogue World | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.17 |
| High FE | 0.40 | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.20 |
| High FA | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.25 |
| Low SS | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.00 |
| Survey | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.25 |
Legend:
FE = Force Enhancement
FA = Force Application
SS = Space Support
* The Rogue World weighting scheme included some changes in the lower levels of the Value Model hierarchy, as shown in Appendix 2.
scores for each system can be regarded as similar to error bars in the results of a
statistical sampling technique. In other words, a system's score can be said with high
confidence to lie within the range of the points shown. A comparison of the scores using
the six different weighting schemes is shown in Figure 3.
The most important result of the analysis is that the systems can be divided into three
groups based on their scores. The TransAtmospheric Vehicle (#l) and the SpaceBased
High Energy Laser (#12) both scored generally in the range of 4,to 5. Five other systems
scored generally in the range of 2 to 3: the Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance and
Targeting System (#5), the Orbit Transfer Vehicle (#2), the Kinetic Energy Weapon
(#13), the High Powered Microwave (#14), and the Particle Beam Weapon (#15). All
other systems scored between 1.0 and about 1.6. This result was very robust to changes in
the weighting scheme. The TAV scored high because it was assessed as a strong
contributor to most space capabilities by making spacelift easier. The High Energy Laser
System scored better than the other space-based weapon systems because the system
concept included using the laser's optics as an imaging device, so the system contributed
to surveillance-related areas as well as to Force Application and active Space Control. In
the second group of systems, the GSRT scored highest because it is such a strong
contributor to the Force Enhancement area, the most important part of the overall space
mission in all weighting schemes. The three space weapons (KEW, HPMW, and PB)
score well because they also contribute to high-priority missions in Force Application and
Space Control. The OTV has a similar score because it contributes to all missions,
though in a more limited way than the TAV. The remaining systems typically scored
lower because their contributions were only in narrow ranges of mission areas and force
qualities.
Scoring the Technologies
The results of the scoring of the technologies are summarized in Table 2. Because
seven of the system concepts strongly outscored the other 12, the team decided to
simplify the analysis of the technologies by considering their interaction only with the
seven top-scoring systems. The score for each technology was calculated by multiplying
the percentage dependence of each of the systems on that technology by the score that
system received in the Value Model, then summing across the seven systems.9 Table 2
lists 20 technologies in order of their scores; five technologies did not contribute to the
seven top systems.10 The scores in Table 2 are measures (in arbitrary units) of the
potential of each technology to improve operational effectiveness in space, and can be
used to compare the technologies to each other.
Perhaps the most important result of the analysis is the high scores received by High
Performance Computing, Micro-mechanical Devices, and Navigation, Guidance, and
Vehicle Control (15.9, 11.3, and 9.3, respectively). These three technologies were each
important to five or more of the top seven systems. Their high scores are the result of the
broad applicability of these technologies to high-value systems.
This is a significant result. All other technologies contributed to only one or two
high-value systems. Of these, the high-scoring ones were Materials Technology (11.0),
Pulsed Power Systems (10.2), and Robotics, Controllers, and End-Effectors (9.0). The
rest of the technologies scored 8.1 or lower and showed no tendency to occur in groups.
Table 2: Technologies Scored Against Top Seven Systems
| System Dependence on Technologies | ||||||||
| (percent) | Weighted | |||||||
| Critical Technologies | TAV | OTV | GSRT | HEL | KEW | HPMW | PB | Technology |
| (#1) | (#2) | (#5) | (#12) | (#13) | (#14) | (#15) | Score | |
| High Performance Computing (#6) | 20 | 20 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 15.9 | |
| Micromechanical Devices (#14) | 5 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 11.3 |
| Materials Technology (#13) | 30 | 5 | 11.0 | |||||
| Pulsed Power Systems (#20) | 40 | 40 | 10.2 | |||||
| Nav., Guidance, and Vehicle Control (#15) | 10 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 5 | 9.3 | ||
| Robotics, Controllers, anmd End-Effectors (#21) | 20 | 15 | 9.0 | |||||
| Lasers (#11) | 25 | 8.1 | ||||||
| Optics (#18) | 25 | 8.1 | ||||||
| High Energy Laser Systems (#5) | 25 | 8.1 | ||||||
| High Power Microwave Systems (#7) | 45 | 6.6 | ||||||
| Power Systems and Energy Conversion (#19) | 20 | 10 | 6.2 | |||||
| Nonchem. High Specific Impulse Prop. (#17) | 40 | 5.9 | ||||||
| Neutral Particle Beam (NPB) Systems (#16) | 45 | 4.9 | ||||||
| Kinetic Energy Systems (#10) | 40 | 4.9 | ||||||
| Sensors (#22) | 25 | 4.7 | ||||||
| Data Fusion (#1) | 20 | 3.8 | ||||||
| Energetic Materials (#3) | 10 | 3.4 | ||||||
| Image Processing (#8) | 15 | 2.8 | ||||||
| Electromagnetic Communications (#2) | 10 | 1.9 | ||||||
| Vehicle Survivability (#24) | 5 | 1.7 | ||||||
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
Launch System Study
Only one launch system was represented among the 19 system concepts, but that system
(TAV) scored very highly. The analysis team felt that more exploration of alternative launch
systems was called for. Accordingly, they scored five additional current and proposed launch
systems: the current Delta II 7925, the Russian Zenit, the proposed Delta Clipper single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle, a derivative of the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) using supersonic
combustion technology, and a two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) design launching from a carrier aircraft
and called 'White Horse." More complete descriptions of these launch systems are found in
Appendix 8. The results of scoring these systems are summarized in Figure 4; the complete data
are in Appendix 9. The SPACECAST 2020 World weighting scheme was used. Delta II 7925
and Zenit are essentially current systems, and their scores showed only moderate gains over
current practice. Zenit was assessed as significantly more effective than Delta because of better
responsiveness, logistics, and support to space missions. The other three systems scored
substantially better, all being in the 4.3 range along with the TAV that was among the original
systems. These four fully reusable lift systems score similarly because they offer similar
advantages over current launch systems. The differences between their scores are probably not
significant.
The analysis team also felt that some of the spacelift systems should be considered together
because they could be expected to work synergistically if deployed together. In particular, the
TAV provides excellent access to near-earth orbit, while the OTV provides easy access between
low-, medium-, and high-altitude orbits. The two systems together would provide efficient
access to all militarily important regions of space. In addition, the Space Modular System
dramatically improves the ease and flexibility of operations in orbit. The team decided to
explore the possibility of combining the three systems, and rated them in combination (using the
SPACECAST 2020 World weighting scheme). The results are summarized in Figure 5, and the
complete scoring data are in Appendix 10. The TAV + OTV and TAV + OTV + Modular
Systems combinations outscored any of the 19 single systems. This result illustrates the
synergism possible when related systems are combined. However, the combinations offered so
much operational capability that the team felt they had difficulty giving them a fair rating within
the structure of the Value Model. One should keep in mind that the Value Model was designed
to rate single systems. The team feels that these results probably underestimate the true
synergism between TAV, OTV, and Modular Systems. In other words, a more detailed analysis
of these combinations would probably score them even higher.
Conclusions
This analysis clearly showed that improved spacelift is one of the most important
contributors to future space operations. The most important area here is an improved space
launch capability, as exemplified by the reusable TAV. Various other advanced launch systems
show equal promise: the Delta Clipper, a NA.SP-derived vehicle, and an aircraft-boosted two-stage-to-orbit system. Such an improved lift capability is important because it improves virtually
all space force capabilities. An orbital transfer vehicle is also important for improving spacelift
to high-altitude orbits.
This analysis also showed that space-based weapons are at the highest level of importance as
contributors to the overall operational efficiency of future space operations. They are important
because they provide important capabilities in ballistic missile defense, defense of terrestrial
forces, terrestrial power projection, and active space defense. Of the weapon systems evaluated,
a High Energy Laser seems to hold the most promise, largely because its optical system could
also be used for some surveillance and imaging missions. Other systems that scored well were a
Kinetic Energy Weapon, a High Powered Microwave, and a Particle Beam Weapon.
The final system that stood out in the analysis was the Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance,
and Targeting System. This system contributes strongly to the Force Enhancement capabilities
of space systems. Such a system provides a global view that could revolutionize terrestrial
military operations.
The technology assessment portion of the study discovered three critical technologies
important to a large number of high-scoring systems. These included the two technologies that
were the top scorers over all. The three technologies are:
High-Performance Computing
Micro-mechanical Devices
Navigation, Guidance, and Vehicle Control
An unexpected and important result of the study was that these technologies (particularly
Micro-mechanical Devices) scored so highly in the technology evaluation. Advances in these
areas show promise to substantially improve a wide range of space operations. Other
technologies were also important, but contributed to only one or two of the high-value systems.
Among the top-scoring technologies were:
Materials Technology
Pulsed Power Systems
Robotics, Controllers, and End-Effectors
Other technologies scored nearly as well; see Table 2 for the complete list.
It is important to remember that the analysis did not take into account the cost of developing
or deploying any of the system concepts. It also looked only briefly at the risk or technological
challenge of developing them (as for instance in Figure 3). This was because of the lack of data
to support such an analysis, and also because of the SPACECAST 2020 charter to be visionary
and future-oriented. While this study indicates some systems and technologies showing promise
for dramatically improving the effectiveness or efficiency of space operations, there are other
important things that need to be considered before making an investment decision. These
include cost and risk.
Some of the high leverage technologies enabling SPACECAST systems, such as high
performance computing, are being pursued aggressively in the private sector. Others, such as
pulsed power systems, may have lower commercial utility. Further analysis of the SPACECAST
systems and their embedded technologies can point the way to an investment strategy
maximizing the defense appropriation. These decisions are beyond the scope of the
SPACECAST charter.
Finally, the SPACECAST operational analysis model is only a first step. It is offered as a
starting point for further elaboration, quantification, and refinement. By assessing what creative
thinkers envisioned would make valuable contributions to national security in the far future,
operational analysis completes the SPACECAST process that began with creative thinking.
Notes
1. The technical justification for this is found in the Law of Large Numbers.
2. Ralph L. Keeney, Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).
3. Draft JCS Pub 3-14, "Military Space Operations,' 15 April 1992, Table III-1.
4. The line items were numbered from 1 to 101, with numbers 10, 14, and 20 not used.
5. Some of the weights show more precision than can be justified in a judgment-based study. This is because in some cases the team members were close but not identical in their judgments and agreed to take an average. This results in a spurious impression of precision, but is otherwise harmless.
6. It was difficult to directly score some systems against the measure of merit. For instance, an improved launch system will clearly affect line item 1 (which refers to the number of satellite communications links available) by making it easier and quicker to launch the satellites, but it is difficult to say by how much. Since the purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the potential future benefit of new technology, the team's practice was to score generously when such judgments were called for. Each system was given a score corresponding to its greatest reasonable contribution to the measure in question.
7. The Militarily Critical Technologies List, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Washington, D.C., October 1992.
8. Two systems were not scored because they did not fit into the structure of the Value Model based on draft JCS Pub 3-14. These were Asteroid Negation and Holographic Projection. They were both assessed as requiring major technology breakthroughs to become effective.
9. For this calculation the nonrescaled SPACECAST 2020 World system score was used. This is the raw score falling in the range of 0 to 100 percent and shown in Appendix 5.
10. These technologies were Hard Real-Time Systems (#4), Information Security (#9), Liquid Rocket
Propulsion (#12), Spacecraft Structures (#23), and Virtual Reality (#25).
Appendix 1: Value Model
| SPACECAST 2020 VALUE MODEL | 27 May 94 | |||||||||
| Hierarchy with weights (Spacecast 2020 "Standard World"): | ||||||||||
| Line | Current | Minor | Significant | Order of | ||||||
| OVERALL OBJECTIVE: Control and Exploit Space | Item | Level | Improvement | Improvement | Magnitude | |||||
| No. | Measure of Merit | (0.0) | (0.1) | (0.5) | (0.9) | |||||
| Crisis availability | 0.35 | 1 | Initial # links in theater | about 10 | 25 | 100 | 1000's | |||
| Communications | Capacity | 0.35 | 2 | Decompressed MB/sec | 300 Mbits/sec/link | 600 | 1000 | 3000 | ||
| 0.22 | Interoperability | 0.20 | 3 | Common-use systems | Little | All AF systems | All US systems | US, commercial, intl. | ||
| Security | 0.10 | 4 | Level of secure links | Corps | Division | Battalion | Platoon | |||
| Availability | 0.10 | 5 | Crisis Availability | Very good | 100% | -- | -- | |||
| Navigation & | Data availability | 0.25 | 6 | Receiver size/cost | Handheld/$1000 | Handheld/$100 | Wristwatch/$50 | On one chip | ||
| Force | Positioning | Accuracy | 0.25 | 7 | Location precision | 10 m | 1 m | 1 cm | -- | |
| Enhance- | 0.20 | Robustness | 0.40 | 8 | Resistance to CM | None (common user) | Antijam | Antijam, antispoof | AJ, AS, antivirus | |
| ment | Processing Speed | 0.36 | 9 | Auto image processing | Some change det. | Search, recognition | Humans for review only | Full auto report to user | ||
| Intelligence & | 10 | (not used) | ||||||||
| 0.37 | Surveillance | ID Capability | 0.21 | 11 | Image interpretability | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | |
| 0.25 | Coverage | 0.14 | 12 | Area per unit time | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | ||
| Day-night, All Weather | 0.29 | 13 | % time data available | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | |||
| 14 | (not used) | |||||||||
| Environmental | Spectral Bands | 0.20 | 15 | Multispectral bands | 5 | 10 | 100's | 1000's | ||
| Monitoring and | Weather Prediction | 0.20 | 16 | Prediction | 24 hrs | 3 day | 1 week | 1 month | ||
| Control | Multispectral Coverage | 0.20 | 17 | Multispectral revisit time | 7 days | 5 days | 1 day | Hours | ||
| Weather Detail | 0.20 | 18 | Instant WX info | Cloud cover | Clouds+precipitation | Clds+precip+winds | -- | |||
| 0.07 | Weather Control | 0.20 | 19 | Amount of control | -- | Clear fog | Modify patterns | Weather on demand | ||
| Mapping, | 20 | (not used) | ||||||||
| Charting, & | Surface Characterizatn | 0.31 | 21 | Amount of detail | Surface terrain | Trafficability | All structures | Full resource characteriztn | ||
| Geodesy | Mensuration | 0.31 | 22 | Geodetic precision | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | ||
| 0.08 | Data availability | 0.38 | 23 | Time to get new map | Months | 1 month | 1 week | 1 day | ||
| Coverage | 0.20 | 24 | Coverage | Ltd global ICBM | Ltd global MRBM | Global MRBM | Global SRBM/cruise | |||
| Warning, | ID Capability | 0.30 | 25 | What and where | (classified) | (classified) | (classified) | Missile type and target | ||
| Processing, & | Timeliness | 0.40 | 26 | Time to tactical warning | 10 min | 5-10 min | 1 min | Seconds | ||
| Dissemination | Security | 0.10 | 27 | Resistance to CM | None | Antijam | Antijam, antispoof | AJ, AS, antivirus | ||
| 0.18 | ||||||||||
|
SPACECAST 2020 VALUE MODEL (Part 2) |
Current | Minor | Significant | Order of | ||||||
| Level | Improvement | Improvement | Magnitude | |||||||
| Measure of Merit | (0.0) | (0.1) | (0.5) | (0.9) | ||||||
| Acquisition & Tracking | Coverage | ## | 28 | Covered area | -- | Most of Eurasia | Half of globe | World | ||
| 0.25 | Accuracy | ## | 29 | Track accuracy | -- | 3 m in atmos. | 3 m everywhere | 1 m everywhere | ||
| Discrimination | ## | 30 | ID/Discrimination | -- | Warning of RV/decoy | Limited discrimination | Mid-course discrimination | |||
| Ballistic | Survivability | 0.13 | 31 | Qualitative judgment | -- | No 1-point | Some capacity | Full capacity | ||
| Missile | failures | concerted attack | major power attack | |||||||
| Defense | Kill lethality | 0.23 | 32 | Pk | -- | 0.7 endoatmospheric | 0.7 endo & boost | > 0.7 all phases | ||
| Timeliness | 0.14 | 33 | Required warning time | -- | 10 days | Hours | Seconds | |||
| Force | Coverage | 0.14 | 34 | Defended area | -- | -- | Regional | Global | ||
| Application | 0.37 | Capacity | 0.12 | 35 | RVs handled at a time | -- | A few | 100 | Entire enemy force | |
| 0.19 | Acquisition & Tracking | Coverage | ## | 36 | Covered area | -- | Most of Eurasia | Half of globe | World | |
| 0.20 | Accuracy | ## | 37 | Accuracy | -- | 3 m, unmoving tgt | 3 m, large moving tgt | 1 m, ground or air tgt | ||
| Air, Land, & Sea | Discrimination | ## | 38 | ID/Discrimination | -- | ID ground targets | Discr. mobile ground | Discr. ground/air decoys | ||
| Defense from | Survivability | 0.17 | 39 | Qualitative judgment | -- | No 1-point | Some capacity | Full capacity | ||
| Space | failures | concerted attack | major power attack | |||||||
| Kill lethality | 0.13 | 40 | Pk | -- | 0.9, fixed targets | 0.5, armored vehicles | 0.9, ground/air tgts | |||
| 0.27 | Timeliness | 0.23 | 41 | Required warning time | -- | Weeks | Days | Minutes | ||
| Coverage | 0.27 | 42 | Covered area | -- | -- | Regional | Global | |||
| Acquisition & Tracking | Coverage | ## | 43 | Covered area | -- | Most of Eurasia | Half of globe | World | ||
| 0.30 | Accuracy | ## | 44 | Accuracy | -- | 3 m, unmoving tgt | 3 m, large moving tgt | 1 m, ground or air tgt | ||
| Power | Discrimination | ## | 45 | ID/Discrimination | -- | ID ground targets | Discr. mobile ground | Discr. ground/air decoys | ||
| Projection | Survivability | 0.13 | 46 | Qualitative judgment | -- | No 1-point | Some capacity | Full capacity | ||
| failures | concerted attack | major power attack | ||||||||
| 0.37 | Kill lethality | 0.17 | 47 | Pk | -- | 0.9, fixed targets | 0.5, armored vehicles | 0.9, ground/air tgts | ||
| Timeliness | 0.22 | 48 | Required warning time | -- | 10 days | Hours | Seconds | |||
| Coverage | 0.18 | 49 | Covered area | -- | -- | Regional | Global | |||
| SPACECAST 2020 VALUE MODEL (Part 3) | Current | Minor | Significant | Order of | ||||||
| Level | Improvement | Improvement | Magnitude | |||||||
| Measure of Merit | (0.0) | (0.1) | (0.5) | (0.9) | ||||||
| Surveillance | Availability | Coverage | ## | 50 | Percent of space | 90% Earth orbits | All Earth orbits | Cislunar space | Heliocentric orbits | |
| 0.33 | Revisit Time | ## | 51 | Time to view | 10s of hrs | 1-6 hrs | 10-60 min | < 1 min | ||
| Robustness | Survivability | ## | 52 | Qualitative judgment | Single-point | No 1-point | Some capacity | Full capacity | ||
| failures | failures | concerted attack | major power attack | |||||||
| 0.33 | 0.33 | Maintainability | ## | 53 | Time to restore | Months + | Days | Hours | Seconds | |
| Accuracy | Resolution | ## | 54 | Target sample distance | (classified) | 1 m | 10 cm | 1cm | ||
| Space | 0.33 | Identification | ## | 55 | Percent objects ID'd | (classified) | (classified) | 85% | 100% | |
| Control | Track/Predict | ## | 56 | Avg # objects lost | 500 | 100 | 10 | 0 | ||
| 0.22 | Protection | Active | Maneuver | ## | 57 | Response time | Hours | 1 hour | Minutes | Seconds |
| Delta Velocity | m/sec | 10 m/sec | 100 m/sec | km/sec | ||||||
| 0.40 | Jamming | ## | 58 | Spectral range | Selected bands | Double # bands | All major bands | All RFs | ||
| Decoys | ## | 59 | Avg decoys / S/C | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 10 | |||
| Range of effectiveness | -- | VIS | VIS+IR | VIS+IR+Radar | ||||||
| 0.33 | Defensive Fire | 0.10 | 60 | Pk | -- | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | ||
| Passive | Redundancy | ## | 61 | Qualitative judgment | Single-point | No 1-point | Some capacity | Full capacity | ||
| failures | failures | concerted attack | major power attack | |||||||
| 0.60 | CC&D | ## | 62 | Pd | 1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | ||
| Hardening | ## | 63 | Sure safe W on target | 1 W | 10 W | 100 W | 1 MW | |||
| Crypto Security | 0.10 | 64 | Percent S/C with crypto | 90% | 100% | -- | -- | |||
| Negation | Target Acq | 65 | Time to produce state | Hours-days | 2 hours | 90 min | Minutes | |||
| 0.20 | vector after launch | |||||||||
| Destructive | Coverage | ## | 66 | Percent of S/C | -- | 10% | 20% | 70% | ||
| 0.33 | ASAT | Weapon Capacity | ## | 67 | Avg # shots / target | -- | 0.1 | 1 | 10 | |
| 0.20 | Effectiveness | ## | 68 | Pk / shot | -- | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | ||
| Incapacitating | Coverage | ## | 69 | Percent of systems | -- | 10% | 20% | 70% | ||
| Systems | Effectiveness | ## | 70 | Pr{incapacitate} | -- | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | ||
| 0.60 | ||||||||||
| SPACECAST 2020 VALUE MODEL (Part 4) | Current | Minor | Significant | Order of | ||||||
| Level | Improvement | Improvement | Magnitude | |||||||
| Measure of Merit | (0.0) | (0.1) | (0.5) | (0.9) | ||||||
| Cost | Recurring | ## | 71 | Cost/lb to orbit | $6,500 | $5,000 | $2,000/lb | $200/lb | ||
| Launch/Lift | 0.25 | Non-recurring | ## | 72 | Develop/procure cost | $10B | $5B | $2B | $300M | |
| 0.62 | Responsiveness | Timeliness | 0.17 | 73 | Required warning time | Months | Weeks | Days | Hours | |
| 0.20 | Orbit range | 0.17 | 74 | Inclinations achievable | 30% | 40% | 70% | 90% | ||
| Surge capability | 0.17 | 75 | Increase in rate | 1 x | 2 x | 5 x | 10 x | |||
| Mission range | 0.17 | 76 | Missions supported | 1 | 2 | Several | All current | |||
| Non-destruct abort | 0.17 | 77 | Pr{soft abort|abort} | 0 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.9 | |||
| Space | Post-abort restart | 0.17 | 78 | Time to restart ops | Years | Months | Weeks | Days | ||
| Support | Reliability | 0.15 | 79 | Pr{destructive abort} | 5% | 2-3% | 1% | 0.50% | ||
| 0.22 | Operability | Locations | ## | 80 | # locations/orbit plane | 1 | 2 | 5 | 10 | |
| 0.15 | Fuel | ## | 81 | Ease of handling | Cryogenic/toxic | Part non-cryo/toxic | Mostly non-cryo/toxic | All non-cryo/toxic | ||
| Ease of handling | ## | 82 | Percent blue-suit | 0% | 10% | 50% | 90% | |||
| Launch ranges | ## | 83 | Number and location | One coastal site | -- | Many coastal sites | All CONUS | |||
| Cmd & Control | ## | 84 | Similarity to air ops | Current launch ops | Like Pegasus/Taurus | Further simplification | Like current air ops | |||
| Environmental impacts | 0.10 | 85 | Toxicity and waste | High and much | Mostly dirty | Mostly clean | Clean, low waste | |||
| Survivability | 0.10 | 86 | Type bases | Fixed/soft | Dispersed | Mobile/very dispersed | V. many/hardened/mobile | |||
| Payload | 0.05 | 87 | Max lift/launch | 50K | 100K | 200K | -- | |||
| Satellite | Communications | 0.33 | 88 | Link reliability | 99.999% | -- | 99.9999% | 99.99999% | ||
| Control | Diagnosis | 0.33 | 89 | Avg time to diagnose | Hours | 90 min | 20 min | 2 min | ||
| 0.20 | Survivability | 0.33 | 90 | Type ground stations | Soft, worldwide | US territory | Mobile backups | Mainly mobile | ||
| Sustainability | S/C--adaptability | 0.13 | 91 | HW failure recovery | Redundancy only | Ltd. reconfigurability | Major reconfigurability | Only minor mission losses | ||
| Logistics of | 0.40 | S/C--upgradability | 0.13 | 92 | Design provisions | None | Limited | Major | Mission changes via S/W | |
| System | Grd--maintenance | 0.13 | 93 | Level of repairs rqd | Component | Board | LRU | S/W only | ||
| 0.18 | Grd--maint. freq. | 0.13 | 94 | Frequency of actions | Daily | Monthly | Many months | Years | ||
| Grd--maint. skills | 0.13 | 95 | Type of personnel | Contract specialist | Mix contract | High-skilled military | 5-level | |||
| Grd--parts | 0.13 | 96 | Type of piece parts rqd | Specialized | Mostly MIL-SPEC | MIL-SPEC | Off the shelf | |||
| Grd--repair | 0.13 | 97 | % work value on site | 100% | 75% | 50% | 10% | |||
| Grd--reliability | 0.13 | 98 | MTBF, critical parts | 100% of system life | 125% of system life | 150% of system life | 200% of system life | |||
| Commonality | 0.20 | 99 | S/C commonality | System-specific | Modular subsystems | Reconfigure designs | Assemble at launch site | |||
| Interoperability | 0.20 | 100 | S/C Interchangeability | None | Alternates available | Standard interface | S/C on any launcher | |||
| Depots/Infrastructure | 0.20 | 101 | Dual-use technology | Ltd use, components | Expand use | Some dual-use designs | All systems dual-use | |||
| Value Hierarchy with "Rogue World" Weights | |||||
| Line | |||||
| OVERALL OBJECTIVE: Control and Exploit Space | Item | ||||
| No. | |||||
| Crisis availability | 0.30 | 1 | |||
| Communications | Capacity | 0.30 | 2 | ||
| 0.20 | Interoperability | 0.10 | 3 | ||
| Security | 0.30 | 4 | |||
| Availability | 0.10 | 5 | |||
| Navigation & | Data availability | 0.20 | 6 | ||
| Force | Positioning | Accuracy | 0.20 | 7 | |
| Enhance- | 0.17 | Robustness | 0.50 | 8 | |
| ment | Processing Speed | 0.27 | 9 | ||
| Intelligence & | 10 | ||||
| 0.31 | Surveillance | ID Capability | 0.27 | 11 | |
| 0.30 | Coverage | 0.07 | 12 | ||
| Day-night, All Weather | 0.40 | 13 | |||
| 14 | |||||
| Environmental | Spectral Bands | 0.20 | 15 | ||
| Monitoring and | Weather Prediction | 0.20 | 16 | ||
| Control | Multispectral Coverage | 0.20 | 17 | ||
| Weather Detail | 0.20 | 18 | |||
| 0.05 | Weather Control | 0.20 | 19 | ||
| Mapping, | 20 | ||||
| Charting, & | Surface Characterizatn | 0.33 | 21 | ||
| Geodesy | Mensuration | 0.33 | 22 | ||
| 0.07 | Data availability | 0.33 | 23 | ||
| Coverage | 0.20 | 24 | |||
| Warning, | ID Capability | 0.20 | 25 | ||
| Processing, & | Timeliness | 0.40 | 26 | ||
| Dissemination | Security | 0.20 | 27 | ||
| 0.22 | |||||
| SPACECAST 2020 VALUE MODEL (Part 2) | Line | ||||
| Item | |||||
| No. | |||||
| Acquisition & Tracking | Coverage | 0.33 | 28 | ||
| 0.16 | Accuracy | 0.33 | 29 | ||
| Discrimination | 0.33 | 30 | |||
| Ballistic | Survivability | 0.25 | 31 | ||
| Missile | |||||
| Defense | Kill lethality | 0.17 | 32 | ||
| Timeliness | 0.11 | 33 | |||
| Force | Coverage | 0.11 | 34 | ||
| Application | 0.43 | Capacity | 0.20 | 35 | |
| 0.21 | Acquisition & Tracking | Coverage | 0.33 | 36 | |
| 0.13 | Accuracy | 0.33 | 37 | ||
| Air, Land, & Sea | Discrimination | 0.33 | 38 | ||
| Defense from | Survivability | 0.22 | 39 | ||
| Space | |||||
| Kill lethality | 0.17 | 40 | |||
| 0.27 | Timeliness | 0.25 | 41 | ||
| Coverage | 0.23 | 42 | |||
| Acquisition & Tracking | Coverage | 0.33 | 43 | ||
| 0.30 | Accuracy | 0.33 | 44 | ||
| Power | Discrimination | 0.33 | 45 | ||
| Projection | Survivability | 0.13 | 46 | ||
| 0.30 | Kill lethality | 0.17 | 47 | ||
| Timeliness | 0.23 | 48 | |||
| Coverage | 0.17 | 49 | |||
| SPACECAST 2020 VALUE MODEL (Part 3) | Line | ||||
| Item | |||||
| No. | |||||
| Surveillance | Availability | Coverage | 0.20 | 50 | |
| 0.33 | Revisit Time | 0.80 | 51 | ||
| Robustness | Survivability | 0.50 | 52 | ||
| 0.33 | 0.33 | Maintainability | 0.50 | 53 | |
| Accuracy | Resolution | 0.25 | 54 | ||
| Space | 0.33 | Identification | 0.25 | 55 | |
| Control | Track/Predict | 0.50 | 56 | ||
| 0.31 | Protection | Active | Maneuver | 0.2 | 57 |
| 0.60 | Jamming | 0.2 | 58 | ||
| Decoys | 0.2 | 59 | |||
| 0.33 | Defensive Fire | 0.4 | 60 | ||
| Passive | Redundancy | 0.30 | 61 | ||
| 0.40 | CC&D | 0.30 | 62 | ||
| Hardening | 0.30 | 63 | |||
| Crypto Security | 0.10 | 64 | |||
| Negation | Target Acq | 65 | |||
| 0.20 | |||||
| Destructive | Coverage | 0.40 | 66 | ||
| 0.33 | ASAT | Weapon Capacity | 0.30 | 67 | |
| 0.60 | Effectiveness | 0.30 | 68 | ||
| Incapacitating | Coverage | 0.60 | 69 | ||
| Systems | Effectiveness | 0.40 | 70 | ||
| 0.20 | |||||
| SPACECAST 2020 VALUE MODEL (Part 4) | Line | ||||
| Item | |||||
| No. | |||||
| Cost | Recurring | 0.50 | 71 | ||
| Launch/Lift | 0.25 | Non-recurring | 0.50 | 72 | |
| 0.62 | Responsiveness | Timeliness | 0.17 | 73 | |
| 0.20 | Orbit range | 0.17 | 74 | ||
| Surge capability | 0.17 | 75 | |||
| Mission range | 0.17 | 76 | |||
| Non-destruct abort | 0.17 | 77 | |||
| Space | Post-abort restart | 0.17 | 78 | ||
| Support | Reliability | 0.15 | 79 | ||
| 0.17 | Operability | Locations | 0.20 | 80 | |
| 0.15 | Fuel | 0.20 | 81 | ||
| Ease of handling | 0.20 | 82 | |||
| Launch ranges | 0.20 | 83 | |||
| Cmd & Control | 0.20 | 84 | |||
| Environmental impacts | 0.10 | 85 | |||
| Survivability | 0.10 | 86 | |||
| Payload | 0.05 | 87 | |||
| Satellite | Communications | 0.33 | 88 | ||
| Control | Diagnosis | 0.33 | 89 | ||
| 0.20 | Survivability | 0.33 | 90 | ||
| Sustainability | S/C--adaptability | 0.13 | 91 | ||
| 0.40 | S/C--upgradability | 0.13 | 92 | ||
| Logistics | Grd--maintenance | 0.13 | 93 | ||
| 0.18 | Grd--maint. freq. | 0.13 | 94 | ||
| Grd--maint. skills | 0.13 | 95 | |||
| Grd--parts | 0.13 | 96 | |||
| Grd--repair | 0.13 | 97 | |||
| Grd--reliability | 0.13 | 98 | |||
| Commonality | 0.20 | 99 | |||
| Interoperability | 0.20 | 100 | |||
| Depots/Infrastructure | 0.20 | 101 | |||
Appendix 3: White Paper System Descriptions
1. Refueled Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV)
This system provides spacelift and weapons deployment from the earth's surface to low earth
orbit using a rocket-powered TAV that takes off from a runway like a conventional aircraft. The
vehicle starts with a full load of propellant but minimal oxidizer. It flies up to rendezvous with a
subsonic air refueling tanker to pick up a full load of oxidizer before continuing to orbital altitude
and speed.
2. Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV)
An unmanned autonomous boost vehicle used to transfer spacecraft between various orbits,
primarily from low earth orbit (LEO) to higher orbits.
3. Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV)
An orbital propulsion and docking system used to take payloads from an earth-to-orbit lift
vehicle and then place it in its final orbital plane or used to fetch and return orbiting payloads to a
central repair and recovery location. The system would also be capable of carrying line
replaceable units (LRU) to a damaged/degraded satellite and accomplishing on-site repair or
replacement.
4. Space Modular System(s)
A satellite motherboard concept in which the mission support equipment common to all satellites
(power generation and distribution; communication transmitters, receivers, and antennas;
navigation; computers and data storage; pointing/tracking/station keeping thruster; satellite
tracking telemetry and control; cross link; etc.) is placed on-orbit and the separate mission-specific payload packages are lifted to the motherboard for integration with the common
elements.
5. Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting System (GSRT)
An omni-sensorial collection, processing, and dissemination system to provide a real time
information data base. This data base is used to create a virtual reality image of the area of
interest. This virtual reality image is then used at all levels of command to provide situational
awareness, technical and intelligence information, and two-way command and control.
6. Super Global Positioning System (S-GPS)
An advanced Global Positioning System that provides increased positioning accuracy on the
order of centimeters, fusion with other sensor assets, enhanced on-board computational
capabilities, and a high data rate transmitter using low power and spread spectrum technology.
S-GPS would employ a system of coded signals to provide multilevel fused information and
selectable accuracies to deny capability to all but selected users.
7. Space Traffic Control System (SPATRACS)
Development of an integrated space traffic control system that will integrate sensor information
(on and off board), provide collision avoidance information, and also deconflict flight planning.
The system has a space segment consisting of a few small, simple satellites with passive sensors
and onboard processing that are responsible for tracking all objects in space. The system also
has a central ground facility that would provide fusion with other data from ground-based sensor,
validation, and additional analysis.
8. Weather Forecast System
Development and operational employment of an integrated weather information system
consisting of on-orbit and ground sensors, and high speed information processing centers that
produce data bases available to weather information users. These data bases would consist of
observational weather data, forecast products, climatological information, and weather advisories
and warning information.
9. Space-Based Solar Monitoring and Alert Satellite System (SMASS)
A system of satellites to provide multispectral electro-optical imaging of the sun, sunspot
mapping and analysis, interplanetary magnetic field mapping, solar flare monitoring/alert
capability, plasma particle measurement, solar electromagnetic energy emissions in the extreme
ultraviolet, and direct broadcast communication capability with space operation centers on earth
and in space. Analysis and forecasting capability would exist on the sensor platforms as well as
at the earth or space-based operations center.
10. Ionospheric Forecasting System
A system of ground and space-based sensors to monitor and map the earth's ionosphere. The
system also includes a control facility to collect and process the data from the sensor network and
then disseminate the information to the user community. The potential exists for ionospheric
modification to enhance military missions.
11. Holographic Projector
A system that could project holograms from space onto the ground, in the sky, or on the ocean
anywhere in the theater of conflict for special operation deception missions. This system would
be composed of either orbiting holographic projector or relay satellites that would pass data and
instructions to a remotely piloted vehicle or aircraft that would then generate and project the
holographic image.
12. Space-Based High Energy Laser (HEL) System
A space-based, multimegawatt high energy laser system that can be used in several modes of
operation. In its weapons mode with the laser at high power, it can attack ground, air, and space
targets. In its surveillance mode, it can operate using the laser at low power levels for active
illumination imaging or with the laser inoperative for passive imaging.
13. Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) System
A general class of weapons that include a variety of warhead types from flechettes and pellets to
large and small heavy metal rods. They can be augmented with explosive or pyrotechnic devices
but generally are not. They achieve their destructive effect by means of the hydrodynamic effect
of penetrating the target at hypervelocity.
14. High Powered Microwave (HPMW) System
A space-based, high-power microwave weapon system that is capable of destroying ground, air,
and space targets.
15. Particle Beam (PB) Weapon System
A directed energy weapon system using a tightly focused, high-energy stream of electrically
neutral atomic particles traveling near the speed of light. A space-based system to attack and
disrupt targets in space or the edge of the atmosphere (ballistic missile defense [BMDI).
16. Weather C3 System
A counterforce weather control system for military applications. The system consists of a global,
on-demand weather observation system; a weather modeling capability; a space-based, directed
energy weather modifier; and a command center with the necessary communication capabilities
to observe, detect, and act on weather modification requirements.
17. Solar Mirror System
A system of orbital mirrors to redirect solar energy for purposes of controlling terrestrial
temperature and cloud patterns.
18. Asteroid Detection System
An observation network composed of multispectral ground and space sensors for surveillance,
detection, tracking, and characterization of space objects that may pose a threat if they were to
collide with the earth. The system also includes a central facility to collect data from all the
sensors in the network, maintain a current data base of all known objects, and disseminate
collected information to appropriate authorities.
19. Asteroid Negation System
A system that would be able to intercept any object that was determined to be a threat to the earth
in sufficient time to deflect its course or fragment it into smaller pieces that do not pose a threat.
Deflection and fragmentation could be accomplished by a variety of means from nuclear
explosive devices, high specific impulse thrusters, kinetic energy projectiles, or directed energy
devices.
Appendix 4: Detailed Descriptions of Value Model Measures of Merit
| Note: Detailed descriptions should be interpreted in the context of the position of the | ||||||
| line in the value hierarchy. For instance, Line Item 1 is in Force Enhancement (Level 1), | ||||||
| Communications (Level 2), Crisis availability (Level 3). | ||||||
| Force Enhancement Measures of Merit: | ||||||
| Line | ||||||
| Item | ||||||
| No. | Measure of Merit | Detailed Description | ||||
| 1 | Initial # links in theater | Number of communication links available in theater | ||||
| at the outset of hostilities | ||||||
| 2 | Decompressed MB/sec | Capacity of each link in megabits per second, | ||||
| including benefits of data compression | ||||||
| 3 | Common-use systems | Degree to which all comsats can be used by all | ||||
| comm terminals | ||||||
| 4 | Level of secure links | Command level at which secure links are easily available | ||||
| 5 | Crisis Availability | Degree to which nav signal is available in theater | ||||
| 6 | Receiver size/cost | Size and cost of device that processes nav signal | ||||
| 7 | Location precision | Expected error of navigation fix | ||||
| 8 | Resistance to CM | Degree of resistance of common-user signal | ||||
| to countermeasures | ||||||
| 9 | Auto image processing | Amount of image interpretation that is done by machine | ||||
| 10 | (not used) | |||||
| 11 | Image interpretability | Degree of detail that can be seen on an image | ||||
| 12 | Area per unit time | Square miles that can be imaged per hour | ||||
| 13 | % time data available | Average percent of a day during which an image | ||||
| can be taken of a given location | ||||||
| 14 | (not used) | |||||
| 15 | Multispectral bands | Number of spectral bands that can be collected at once | ||||
| 16 | Prediction | Length of time over which a high-accuracy weather | ||||
| prediction is valid | ||||||
| 17 | Multispectral revisit time | Average time between viewing opportunities with | ||||
| a multispectral sensor | ||||||
| Line | Measure of Merit | Description | ||||
| 18 | Instant WX info | Type of weather information available in near realtime | ||||
| 19 | Amount of control | Available control over weather | ||||
| 20 | (not used) | |||||
| 21 | Amount of detail | Type of detailed information available about surface | ||||
| and subsurface features | ||||||
| 22 | Geodetic precision | Precision with which locations are known | ||||
| 23 | Time to get new map | Time required to produce and distribute a new map | ||||
| based on existing data | ||||||
| 24 | Coverage | Type of missiles that can be detected | ||||
| 25 | What and where | What type of missile is being tracked and where it is headed | ||||
| 26 | Time to tactical warning | Typical elapsed time until tactical user receives warning | ||||
| 27 | Resistance to CM | Degree of resistance of spacecraft command and | ||||
| data signals to countermeasures | ||||||
| Force Application Measures of Merit: | ||||||
| 28 | Covered area | Portion of world covered by system acquisition and | ||||
| tracking subsystem | ||||||
| 29 | Track accuracy | Expected error in track; portion of world over which | ||||
| this is achieved | ||||||
| 30 | ID/Discrimination | Degree to which possible RVs can be identified | ||||
| and decoys discriminated from warheads | ||||||
| 31 | Qualitative judgment | Scorers' judgment on survivability of system | ||||
| 32 | Pk | Probability of kill; portion of flight where this is attainable | ||||
| 33 | Required warning time | Time required to bring the system to full alert | ||||
| 34 | Defended area | Portion of world protected by system | ||||
| 35 | RVs handled at a time | Number of re-entry vehicles that can be engaged | ||||
| at once | ||||||
| 36 | Covered area | Portion of world covered by system acquisition and | ||||
| tracking subsystem | ||||||
| 37 | Accuracy | Expected error in track; relevant type of target | ||||
| Line | Measure of Merit | Description | ||||
| 38 | ID/Discrimination | Degree to which possible targets can be identified | ||||
| and discriminated from decoys | ||||||
| 39 | Qualitative judgment | Scorers' judgment on survivability of system | ||||
| 40 | Pk | Probability of kill for different terrestrial targets | ||||
| 41 | Required warning time | Time required to bring the system to full alert | ||||
| 42 | Covered area | Portion of world protected by system | ||||
| 43 | Covered area | Portion of world covered by system acquisition and | ||||
| tracking subsystem | ||||||
| 44 | Accuracy | Expected error in track; relevant type of target | ||||
| 45 | ID/Discrimination | Degree to which possible targets can be identified | ||||
| and discriminated from decoys | ||||||
| 46 | Qualitative judgment | Scorers' judgment on survivability of system | ||||
| 47 | Pk | Probability of kill for different terrestrial targets | ||||
| 48 | Required warning time | Time required to bring the system to full alert | ||||
| 49 | Covered area | Portion of world protected by system | ||||
| Space Control Measures of Merit: | ||||||
| 50 | Percent of space | Portion of space that is covered by surveillance | ||||
| system | ||||||
| 51 | Time to view | Maximum time until an object in orbit can be tracked | ||||
| 52 | Qualitative judgment | Scorers' judgment on survivability of system | ||||
| 53 | Time to restore | Time to restore full capability after a system failure | ||||
| 54 | Target sample distance | Typical minimum resolved distance in image of | ||||
| spacecraft | ||||||
| 55 | Percent objects ID'd | Percent of possibly hostile spacecraft that are | ||||
| correctly identified | ||||||
| 56 | Avg # objects lost | Average daily number of space objects whose | ||||
| tracks have been lost | ||||||
| 57 | Response time | Time required to plan and execute an evasive maneuver | ||||
| Delta Velocity | Velocity change of feasible evasive maneuvers | |||||
| 58 | Spectral range | Range of radio frequencies over which an attacker | ||||
| can be jammed | ||||||
| Line | Measure of Merit | Description | ||||
| 59 | Avg decoys / S/C | Average number of decoys available per spacecraft | ||||
| Range of effectiveness | Range of sensors over which decoys are effective | |||||
| 60 | Pk | Probability of kill of anti-ASAT weapon | ||||
| 61 | Qualitative judgment | Scorers' judgment on survivability of system | ||||
| 62 | Pd | Probability of detection | ||||
| 63 | Sure safe W on target | Number of watts a spacecraft can receive without risk | ||||
| of damage | ||||||
| 64 | Percent S/C with crypto | Percent of spacecraft with encrypted uplinks and downlinks | ||||
| 65 | Time to produce state | Time from hostile spacecraft launch to possession of | ||||
| vector after launch | targeting-quality state vector | |||||
| 66 | Percent of S/C | Percent of potentially hostile spacecraft that can | ||||
| be engaged | ||||||
| 67 | Avg # shots / target | Average number of times each potentially hostile | ||||
| spacecraft can be engaged | ||||||
| 68 | Pk / shot | Probability of kill for one engagement | ||||
| 69 | Percent of systems | Percent of potentially hostile spacecraft that can | ||||
| 70 | Pr{incapacitate} | Probability for one engagement that the target will | ||||
| be effectively incapacitated | ||||||
| Space Support Measures of Merit: | ||||||
| 71 | Cost/lb to orbit | Cost per pound to put spacecraft in low Earth orbit | ||||
| 72 | Develop/procure cost | Cost to develop and procure a new launch system | ||||
| 73 | Required warning time | Time required to prepare for and conduct a space launch | ||||
| 74 | Inclinations achievable | Percent of all orbit inclination (0-110 degrees) that | ||||
| a launch system can achieve | ||||||
| 75 | Increase in rate | Possible increase in launch rate during crisis | ||||
| 76 | Missions supported | Number of different spacecraft that a given booster | ||||
| can launch | ||||||
| 77 | Pr{soft abort|abort} | Probability that a post-liftoff launch abort will not | ||||
| harm the booster or payload | ||||||
| 78 | Time to restart ops | Time to restart launch operations after a major mishap | ||||
| 79 | Pr{destructive abort} | Probability that a launch attempt will not be successful | ||||
| Line | Measure of Merit | Description | ||||
| 80 | # locations/orbit plane | Number of launch sites that can be used to launch | ||||
| into a given orbit plane | ||||||
| 81 | Ease of handling | The degree to which the booster's propellants are | ||||
| and/or toxic | ||||||
| 82 | Percent blue-suit | Percent of launch crew that is military personnel | ||||
| 83 | Number and location | Number of location of launch ranges needed for | ||||
| space launches | ||||||
| 84 | Similarity to air ops | Degree to which launch operations resemble | ||||
| typical aircraft operations | ||||||
| 85 | Toxicity and waste | Toxicity and volume of vented propellants and | ||||
| combustion products | ||||||
| 86 | Type bases | Number and type (with regard to survivability) of | ||||
| available launch bases | ||||||
| 87 | Max lift/launch | Maximum payload to low Earth orbit per launch | ||||
| 88 | Link reliability | Reliability of comm links in satellite control system | ||||
| 89 | Avg time to diagnose | Average time to diagnose and correct a failure in | ||||
| satellite control system | ||||||
| 90 | Type ground stations | Number and type (with regard to survivability) of | ||||
| satellite control ground stations | ||||||
| 91 | HW failure recovery | Ability of spacecraft to adapt to hardware failures | ||||
| 92 | Design provisions | Degree to which spacecraft can be upgraded | ||||
| 93 | Level of repairs rqd | Typical hardware level at which repairs must be made | ||||
| 94 | Frequency of actions | Typical frequency of maintenance actions | ||||
| 95 | Type of personnel | Type of personnel required for maintenance | ||||
| 96 | Type of piece parts rqd | Type of piece parts required | ||||
| 97 | % work value on site | Percent of repair work value that is done on-site | ||||
| 98 | MTBF, critical parts | Typical mean time between failure of critical parts | ||||
| 99 | S/C commonality | Degree of commonality between spacecraft | ||||
| 100 | S/C Interchangeability | Degree to which spacecraft can be launched on | ||||
| different boosters | ||||||
| 101 | Dual-use technology | Degree to which military and civil spacecraft use | ||||
| common designs | ||||||
Appendix 5: System Concept Scores
| TAV (#1) | OTV (#2) | OMV (#3) | Modular Sys. (#4) | GSRT (#5) | Super GPS (#6) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 34.1% | Sys Score: | 14.8% | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 3.1% | Sys Score: | 18.9% | Sys Score: | 4.7% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 1 | 80.0% | 2.3% | 40.0% | 1.1% | 30.0% | 0.9% | ||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||
| 5 | 10.0% | 0.1% | 5.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.1% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||
| 6 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | 50.0% | 0.9% | ||||||||||
| 8 | 50.0% | 1.5% | ||||||||||
| 9 | 90.0% | 3.0% | ||||||||||
| 10 | ||||||||||||
| 11 | 90.0% | 1.8% | 50.0% | 1.0% | ||||||||
| 12 | 90.0% | 1.2% | 40.0% | 0.5% | 90.0% | 1.2% | ||||||
| 13 | 90.0% | 2.4% | 40.0% | 1.1% | 30.0% | 0.8% | 90.0% | 2.4% | ||||
| 14 | ||||||||||||
| 15 | ||||||||||||
| 16 | ||||||||||||
| 17 | 50.0% | 0.3% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 18 | ||||||||||||
| 19 | ||||||||||||
| 20 | ||||||||||||
| 21 | ||||||||||||
| 22 | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 23 | 90.0% | 1.0% | ||||||||||
| 24 | 80.0% | 1.1% | 40.0% | 0.5% | 30.0% | 0.4% | ||||||
| 25 | ||||||||||||
| 26 | ||||||||||||
| 27 | ||||||||||||
| SATRACS (#7) | WX Forecast (#8) | SMASS (#9) | Iono. Forecast (#10) | HEL (#12) | ||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 4.3% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 32.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 1 | 10.0% | 0.3% | 10.0% | 0.3% | ||||||
| 2 | 10.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||
| 10 | ||||||||||
| 11 | 90.0% | 1.8% | ||||||||
| 12 | 90.0% | 1.2% | ||||||||
| 13 | 90.0% | 2.4% | ||||||||
| 14 | ||||||||||
| 15 | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 16 | 10.0% | 0.1% | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||
| 17 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 18 | 10.0% | 0.1% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||
| 19 | ||||||||||
| 20 | ||||||||||
| 21 | ||||||||||
| 22 | ||||||||||
| 23 | ||||||||||
| 24 | 50.0% | 0.7% | ||||||||
| 25 | 50.0% | 1.0% | ||||||||
| 26 | 50.0% | 1.3% | ||||||||
| 27 | ||||||||||
| KEW (#13) | HPMW (#14) | Particle Beam (#15) | WX Control (#16) | Solar Mirrors (#17) | Ast. Det. (#18) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 12.2% | Sys Score: | 14.7% | Sys Score: | 10.9% | Sys Score: | 2.3% | Sys Score: | 0.5% | Sys Score: | 2.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 1 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||||
| 10 | ||||||||||||
| 11 | ||||||||||||
| 12 | ||||||||||||
| 13 | ||||||||||||
| 14 | ||||||||||||
| 15 | 50.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||||
| 16 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||||
| 17 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||||
| 18 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||||
| 19 | 90.0% | 0.5% | 50.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||
| 20 | ||||||||||||
| 21 | ||||||||||||
| 22 | ||||||||||||
| 23 | ||||||||||||
| 24 | ||||||||||||
| 25 | ||||||||||||
| 26 | ||||||||||||
| 27 | ||||||||||||
| TAV (#1) | OTV (#2) | OMV (#3) | Modular Sys. (#4) | GSRT (#5) | Super GPS (#6) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 34.1% | Sys Score: | 14.8% | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 3.1% | Sys Score: | 18.9% | Sys Score: | 4.7% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 28 | 90.0% | 0.5% | 40.0% | 0.2% | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||
| 29 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||||
| 30 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||||
| 31 | 90.0% | 0.8% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 32 | ||||||||||||
| 33 | ||||||||||||
| 34 | 90.0% | 0.8% | 40.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||
| 35 | 50.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||||
| 36 | 90.0% | 0.3% | 40.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 37 | 90.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||||
| 38 | ||||||||||||
| 39 | 90.0% | 0.8% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 40 | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 41 | ||||||||||||
| 42 | 90.0% | 1.2% | 40.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 43 | 90.0% | 0.6% | 90.0% | 0.6% | 90.0% | 0.6% | ||||||
| 44 | 90.0% | 0.6% | 90.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||
| 45 | 90.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||||
| 46 | 90.0% | 0.8% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 47 | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 48 | 90.0% | 1.4% | ||||||||||
| 49 | 90.0% | 1.1% | 40.0% | 0.5% | 90.0% | 1.1% | ||||||
| SATRACS (#7) | WX Forecast (#8) | SMASS (#9) | Iono. Forecast (#10) | HEL (#12) | ||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 4.3% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 32.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 28 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 29 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 30 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 31 | 90.0% | 0.8% | ||||||||
| 32 | 90.0% | 1.4% | ||||||||
| 33 | 80.0% | 0.8% | ||||||||
| 34 | 90.0% | 0.8% | ||||||||
| 35 | 50.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||
| 36 | 90.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||
| 37 | 50.0% | 0.2% | ||||||||
| 38 | ||||||||||
| 39 | 50.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||
| 40 | 50.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||
| 41 | 90.0% | 1.0% | ||||||||
| 42 | 40.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 43 | 90.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||
| 44 | 70.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 45 | ||||||||||
| 46 | 90.0% | 0.8% | ||||||||
| 47 | 40.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 48 | 90.0% | 1.4% | ||||||||
| 49 | 50.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||
| KEW (#13) | HPMW (#14) | Particle Beam (#15) | WX Control (#16) | Solar Mirrors (#17) | Ast. Det. (#18) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 12.2% | Sys Score: | 14.7% | Sys Score: | 10.9% | Sys Score: | 2.3% | Sys Score: | 0.5% | Sys Score: | 2.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 28 | 90.00% | 0.52% | 90.00% | 0.52% | ||||||||
| 29 | 90.00% | 0.52% | 50.00% | 0.29% | ||||||||
| 30 | 90.00% | 0.52% | 50.00% | 0.29% | ||||||||
| 31 | 50.00% | 0.45% | 50.00% | 0.45% | ||||||||
| 32 | 50.00% | 0.80% | 50.00% | 0.80% | ||||||||
| 33 | 70.00% | 0.66% | 90.00% | 0.85% | ||||||||
| 34 | 50.00% | 0.47% | 90.00% | 0.85% | ||||||||
| 35 | 50.00% | 0.42% | 50.00% | 0.42% | ||||||||
| 36 | 90.00% | 0.30% | 90.00% | 0.30% | ||||||||
| 37 | 50.00% | 0.17% | 10.00% | 0.03% | ||||||||
| 38 | ||||||||||||
| 39 | 50.00% | 0.43% | 50.00% | 0.43% | ||||||||
| 40 | 10.00% | 0.07% | 70.00% | 0.46% | ||||||||
| 41 | 60.00% | 0.70% | 90.00% | 1.05% | ||||||||
| 42 | 50.00% | 0.68% | 90.00% | 1.23% | ||||||||
| 43 | 90.00% | 0.63% | 90.00% | 0.63% | ||||||||
| 44 | 10.00% | 0.07% | 50.00% | 0.35% | ||||||||
| 45 | ||||||||||||
| 46 | 50.00% | 0.45% | 50.00% | 0.45% | ||||||||
| 47 | 10.00% | 0.12% | 70.00% | 0.83% | ||||||||
| 48 | 60.00% | 0.91% | 90.00% | 1.36% | ||||||||
| 49 | 70.00% | 0.89% | 90.00% | 1.15% | ||||||||
| TAV (#1) | OTV (#2) | OMV (#3) | Modular Sys. (#4) | GSRT (#5) | Super GPS (#6) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 34.1% | Sys Score: | 14.8% | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 3.1% | Sys Score: | 18.9% | Sys Score: | 4.7% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 50 | 90.0% | 0.4% | 40.0% | 0.2% | 10.0% | 0.0% | ||||||
| 51 | 90.0% | 1.8% | ||||||||||
| 52 | 50.0% | 0.6% | 10.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.6% | ||||||
| 53 | 50.0% | 0.6% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 54 | 90.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||||
| 55 | 90.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||||
| 56 | 90.0% | 1.1% | ||||||||||
| 57 | 20.0% | 0.2% | ||||||||||
| 58 | ||||||||||||
| 59 | ||||||||||||
| 60 | ||||||||||||
| 61 | 50.0% | 0.7% | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 62 | ||||||||||||
| 63 | ||||||||||||
| 64 | ||||||||||||
| 65 | ||||||||||||
| 66 | 90.0% | 0.5% | 40.0% | 0.2% | ||||||||
| 67 | 50.0% | 0.2% | 10.0% | 0.0% | ||||||||
| 68 | ||||||||||||
| 69 | 90.0% | 2.4% | 40.0% | 1.1% | ||||||||
| 70 | ||||||||||||
| SATRACS (#7) | WX Forecast (#8) | SMASS (#9) | Iono. Forecast (#10) | HEL (#12) | ||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 4.3% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 32.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 50 | 10.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.2% | ||||
| 51 | 90.0% | 1.8% | 90.0% | 1.8% | 60.0% | 1.2% | ||||
| 52 | 50.0% | 0.6% | 50.0% | 0.6% | 70.0% | 0.9% | ||||
| 53 | ||||||||||
| 54 | 30.0% | 0.2% | 30.0% | 0.2% | 50.0% | 0.3% | ||||
| 55 | 70.0% | 0.4% | 70.0% | 0.4% | 80.0% | 0.5% | ||||
| 56 | 50.0% | 0.6% | 50.0% | 0.6% | 80.0% | 1.0% | ||||
| 57 | ||||||||||
| 58 | ||||||||||
| 59 | ||||||||||
| 60 | 90.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||
| 61 | ||||||||||
| 62 | ||||||||||
| 63 | ||||||||||
| 64 | ||||||||||
| 65 | 70.0% | 1.0% | ||||||||
| 66 | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||
| 67 | 90.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||
| 68 | 90.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||
| 69 | 90.0% | 2.4% | ||||||||
| 70 | 90.0% | 1.6% | ||||||||
| KEW (#13) | HPMW (#14) | Particle Beam (#15) | WX Control (#16) | Solar Mirrors (#17) | Ast. Det. (#18) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 12.2% | Sys Score: | 14.7% | Sys Score: | 10.9% | Sys Score: | 2.3% | Sys Score: | 0.5% | Sys Score: | 2.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 50 | 90.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||||
| 51 | ||||||||||||
| 52 | ||||||||||||
| 53 | ||||||||||||
| 54 | 10.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 55 | 90.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||||
| 56 | 90.0% | 1.1% | ||||||||||
| 57 | ||||||||||||
| 58 | ||||||||||||
| 59 | ||||||||||||
| 60 | 50.0% | 0.1% | 90.0% | 0.3% | 90.0% | 0.3% | ||||||
| 61 | 50.0% | 0.7% | 50.0% | 0.7% | ||||||||
| 62 | ||||||||||||
| 63 | ||||||||||||
| 64 | ||||||||||||
| 65 | 70.0% | 1.0% | ||||||||||
| 66 | 70.0% | 0.4% | 90.0% | 0.5% | 90.0% | 0.5% | ||||||
| 67 | 50.0% | 0.2% | 90.0% | 0.4% | 90.0% | 0.4% | ||||||
| 68 | 90.0% | 0.4% | 90.0% | 0.4% | 90.0% | 0.4% | ||||||
| 69 | 90.0% | 2.4% | 90.0% | 2.4% | ||||||||
| 70 | 90.0% | 1.6% | 90.0% | 1.6% | ||||||||
| TAV (#1) | OTV (#2) | OMV (#3) | Modular Sys. (#4) | GSRT (#5) | Super GPS (#6) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 34.1% | Sys Score: | 14.8% | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 3.1% | Sys Score: | 18.9% | Sys Score: | 4.7% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 71 | 90.0% | 1.5% | 50.0% | 0.9% | ||||||||
| 72 | 60.0% | 1.0% | 50.0% | 0.9% | ||||||||
| 73 | 90.0% | 0.4% | 50.0% | 0.2% | ||||||||
| 74 | 50.0% | 0.2% | 50.0% | 0.2% | ||||||||
| 75 | 100.0% | 0.5% | ||||||||||
| 76 | 70.0% | 0.3% | 70.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||
| 77 | 90.0% | 0.4% | 60.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||
| 78 | 50.0% | 0.2% | 20.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 79 | 90.0% | 1.8% | 30.0% | 0.6% | ||||||||
| 80 | 100.0% | 0.4% | 30.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||
| 81 | 70.0% | 0.3% | 10.0% | 0.0% | ||||||||
| 82 | 90.0% | 0.4% | 90.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||
| 83 | 100.0% | 0.4% | ||||||||||
| 84 | 90.0% | 0.4% | 50.0% | 0.2% | ||||||||
| 85 | 80.0% | 1.1% | 50.0% | 0.7% | ||||||||
| 86 | 50.0% | 0.7% | 50.0% | 0.7% | ||||||||
| 87 | 50.0% | 0.3% | ||||||||||
| 88 | ||||||||||||
| 89 | 50.0% | 0.7% | ||||||||||
| 90 | ||||||||||||
| 91 | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | ||||
| 92 | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 90.0% | 0.2% | ||||
| 93 | 50.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 94 | ||||||||||||
| 95 | 70.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 96 | 70.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 97 | 70.0% | 0.1% | ||||||||||
| 98 | ||||||||||||
| 99 | 90.0% | 0.7% | 90.0% | 0.7% | ||||||||
| 100 | 90.0% | 0.7% | 50.0% | 0.4% | 90.0% | 0.7% | ||||||
| 101 | 90.0% | 0.7% | 90.0% | 0.7% | 90.0% | 0.7% | 90.0% | 0.7% | ||||
| SATRACS (#7) | WX Forecast (#8) | SMASS (#9) | Iono. Forecast (#10) | HEL (#12) | ||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 3.6% | Sys Score: | 4.3% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 0.8% | Sys Score: | 32.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 71 | ||||||||||
| 72 | ||||||||||
| 73 | ||||||||||
| 74 | ||||||||||
| 75 | ||||||||||
| 76 | ||||||||||
| 77 | ||||||||||
| 78 | ||||||||||
| 79 | ||||||||||
| 80 | ||||||||||
| 81 | ||||||||||
| 82 | ||||||||||
| 83 | ||||||||||
| 84 | ||||||||||
| 85 | ||||||||||
| 86 | ||||||||||
| 87 | ||||||||||
| 88 | ||||||||||
| 89 | ||||||||||
| 90 | ||||||||||
| 91 | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | ||||||
| 92 | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | ||||||
| 93 | ||||||||||
| 94 | ||||||||||
| 95 | ||||||||||
| 96 | ||||||||||
| 97 | ||||||||||
| 98 | ||||||||||
| 99 | ||||||||||
| 100 | ||||||||||
| 101 | ||||||||||
| KEW (#13) | HPMW (#14) | Particle Beam (#15) | WX Control (#16) | Solar Mirrors (#17) | Ast. Det. (#18) | |||||||
| Line | Sys Score: | 12.2% | Sys Score: | 14.7% | Sys Score: | 10.9% | Sys Score: | 2.3% | Sys Score: | 0.5% | Sys Score: | 2.2% |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 71 | ||||||||||||
| 72 | ||||||||||||
| 73 | ||||||||||||
| 74 | ||||||||||||
| 75 | ||||||||||||
| 76 | ||||||||||||
| 77 | ||||||||||||
| 78 | ||||||||||||
| 79 | ||||||||||||
| 80 | ||||||||||||
| 81 | ||||||||||||
| 82 | ||||||||||||
| 83 | ||||||||||||
| 84 | ||||||||||||
| 85 | ||||||||||||
| 86 | ||||||||||||
| 87 | ||||||||||||
| 88 | ||||||||||||
| 89 | ||||||||||||
| 90 | ||||||||||||
| 91 | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | ||
| 92 | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | 50.0% | 0.1% | ||
| 93 | ||||||||||||
| 94 | ||||||||||||
| 95 | ||||||||||||
| 96 | ||||||||||||
| 97 | ||||||||||||
| 98 | ||||||||||||
| 99 | ||||||||||||
| 100 | ||||||||||||
| 101 | ||||||||||||
Appendix 6: SPACECAST 2020
Critical Technologies
1. Data Fusion (MCTL 4.2.5): Data fusion is the technique whereby multivariate data from
multiple sources are retrieved and processed as a single, unified entity. Data fusion is
fundamental to command and control, with intelligence processing being a major ingredient. A
significant set of priority databases is crucial to the effective functioning of the fusion process.
2. Electromagnetic Communications (MCTL 5.1.1): This technology covers the
development and production of a variety of telecommunication equipment used for
electromagnetic transmission of information over any media. The information may be analog or
digital, ranging in bandwidth from a single voice or data channel to video or multiplexed
channels occupying hundreds of megahertz. Included are onboard satellite communication
equipment and laser communication techniques capable of automatically acquiring and tracking
signals and maintaining communications through atmospheric, exoatmospheric, and subsurface
(water) media.
3. Energetic Materials (MCTL 12.7): This technology covers the development, production,
and storage of constituent materials into composites or formulations that can be used as high
energy propellants. This technology must be available if the ingredients of energetic
formulations are to be manufactured safely in adequate quantity and quality for operational
propulsion systems.
4. Hard Real-Time Systems (MCTL 4.2.4): Technologies required for the processing of
data by a computer system that provides a required level of service as a function of available
resources, within a guaranteed response time, regardless of the load on the system, when
stimulated by an external event. Hard real-time operating systems that provide a shared set of
computer resource management services designed and optimized for support of time-critical
computer software applications, command and control, and aerospace vehicle navigation.
5. High Energy Laser Systems (MCTL 11.1): These technologies cover those required to
generate high energy laser (HEL) beams (20 kW or greater average power, 1 kJ or more energy
per pulse) at infrared, visible, or ultraviolet wavelengths and project them to a target where they
will perform damage ranging from degradation to destruction. Included are those technologies
covering HEL beam pointing, tracking control, beam propagation, and target coupling.
Technologies required to integrate and implement a HEL system are also included.
6. High Performance Computing (MCTL 4. 1. 1): This technology covers the
development of extremely high performance digital computers with vector and massive parallel
processor architecture. This technology is required not only to process massive amounts of data
in real time, but is also critical to the ability to computationally solve design problems in critical
areas such as hypersonic aerodynamics, heat transfer, astrophysics, chemistry, and high energy
physics.
7. High Power Microwave Systems (MCTL 11.2): This technology, also known as high
power radio frequency systems technology, covers sources capable of generating sufficient high
power microwave (HPMW) power, components for modulating the power, and antenna arrays
which are required to direct the energy to a target. Peak powers of 100 megawatts or more,
single pulse energy of 100J or more, and average powers of more than 10 kW are required for the
development of weapons systems resulting in electrical component upset or burnout and
antipersonnel applications.
8. Image Processing (MCTL 4.1.4): This technology is used for acquiring, transferring,
analyzing, displaying, and making use of image data in real-time or near real time. Included are
technologies related to implementation of mobile sensors for real-time target acquisition and
guidance, processing and displays of large complex data sets, data transmission and compression
techniques, archival storage of imagery data, and real-time displays and three-dimensional
presentation.
9. Information Security (MCTL 5.5): This technology includes the means and functions
for controlling the accessibility or ensuring the confidentiality or integrity of information and
communications, as well as the availability of resources. Included under this section are the
development and production of equipment for information security functions, including
measuring and test equipment, cryptographic material (including documents, devices, equipment,
and other apparatus), and software required or modified for the development, production, and use
of this equipment.
10. Kinetic Energy Systems (MCTL 11.4): This technology is required to propel projectiles
at velocities greater than 1.6 km/sec (much higher than conventional gun or rocket systems) to
obtain an appropriate combination of properties such as shape, size, density, and ductility at
impact velocity. Technologies for precision pointing, tracking, launch, and management of
launch platforms are also included. Kinetic energy weapons are especially advantageous for the
precision destruction of hard targets and armored vehicles, and the interception and mission
denial of aircraft, space vehicles, and similar fast moving targets.
11. Lasers (MCTL 10.1): This technology covers the development and production of lasers
at power levels described under MCTL 11.1, High Energy Laser Systems. Lasers consist of the
laser hardware, the laser medium, mirrors, and other optical components that form the laser
oscillator cavity. Lasers may operate in a continuous, single-pulsed, or repetitively pulsed modes
depending on the application and requirements. Energy sources (chemical or electrical) required
to generate the HEL beam are included under this section.
12. Liquid Rocket Propulsion (MCTL 9.4.1): This technology covers liquid propulsion
rocket systems that are used to power space launch vehicles to inject payloads into orbit and to
change spacecraft orbits. Propellants for these systems include both storable and cryogenic
types. The technologies of concern are those associated with the provision of more efficient
propulsion through better propulsion control, lightweight motor hardware, and more efficient
subsystems.
13. Materials Technology (MCTL 1.0): This technology includes multiapplication
materials. Metals, alloys, and ceramics (MCTL 1.1) covers classes of metals and noncomposite
ceramics with enhanced strength and durability at progressively more severe load bearing and
thermal environments. Composite materials (MCTL 1.2) covers high performance organic,
metal, carbon, and ceramic matrix composites which result in structural weight reduction,
enhanced range, propulsion, and vehicle capabilities to meet operational requirements. Carbon
and ceramic composites may provide advanced thermal protection material for advanced
aerospace vehicles.
14. Micro-mechanical Devices (MCTL 2.6): This technology covers the manufacture of
micro-mechanical devices, also known as micro machines, micro robots, and micro sensors, and
their integration with microelectronics devices on a single 'chip." Applications of this technology
may include high precision mirrors and lenses for high output lasers, gyroscopic control guidance
systems, sensors for control systems and miniature engines, accelerometers, transducers, and
piezoelectric drives which can revolutionize military systems in terms of size, weight, and
performance parameters such as power requirements.
15. Navigation, Guidance, and Vehicle Control (MCTL 7-0): These technologies are
required for both autonomous and cooperative positioning (navigation), coordination, and control
of military force elements. Included are technologies for flight management, vehicle guidance,
and control. Accurate positioning and control are essential for the effective coordination of
highly mobile military flight vehicles. These capabilities also directly determine the delivery
accuracy and lethality of 'smart" weapons.
16. Neutral Particle Beam (NPB) Systems (MCTL 11-3.2): Technologies required for
generation, propagation, and control of high-intensity atomic beams of hydrogen or its isotopes.
Includes high current (tens of milliampere) negative hydrogen ion beam generation and
acceleration, high burst power generation, beam control and monitoring subsystems, and target
interaction and kill assessment. NPB weapons use projections from a high energy particle
accelerator, through a charge neutralization cell, to a distant target. NPBs only have utility in
space.
17. Nonchemical High Specific Impulse Propulsion (MCTL 9.5.2): This technology covers
low-thrust, high specific impulse propulsion devices that can be used for spacecraft station
keeping or orbit changes. Specifically, these propulsion systems include, but are not limited to,
electrostatic, electrothermal, and electromagnetic systems, which utilize electric power to
accelerate propellant gases to high exit velocities.
18. Optics (MCTL 10.2): This technology covers those required to develop and produce
optics where the criticality of the component is major and the technology involved in the
fabrication of key optical components involves techniques and processes which are not generally
available in the commercial market. This technology, which includes adaptive optics, allows
reconnaissance systems capable of operation without atmospheric distortion and directed energy
systems capable of diffraction-limited performance against space-based or endo-atmospheric
targets.
19. Power Systems and Energy Conversion (MCTL 10.3.1): These technologies address
the generation and delivery of power to meet electrical requirements under specified
environmental conditions, and within specific size and weight constraints. These technologies
include low power AC and DC power generation for sensitive electronics applications, space-qualified field generation equipment, high energy density systems, energy conversion
technologies applied to generation of primary electrical power, techniques for continuous
conversion/power generation, and pulse power applications.
20. Pulsed Power Systems (MCTL 10.3.3): These technologies cover the development and
production of equipment required for moderate and high pulse power systems (greater than 2
megawatts average power with more than 10 kJ per pulse). Included are pulse power subsystems
required for active radar and directed energy systems. These technologies address high power
solid state control components, switches, and techniques for achieving and preserving fine-grained pulse characteristics in moderate and high power systems.
21. Robotics, Controllers, and End-Effectors (MCTL 2.2.5): This technology covers
multifunctional manipulation devices employing feedback information from one or more sensors
to orient parts, tools, or other devices through variable movements in three-dimensional space.
In order to perform complex, high precision tasks, they contain at least three open or closed loop
servo devices and have accessible programmability by means of off-line computer or
programmable logic controllers.
22. Sensors (MCTL 6.0): These technologies include all sensor types that are of military
interest. Included are technologies for acoustics, optical sensors, cameras, radar identification,
gravity meters, magnetometers, and associated gradiometers. Critical elements include specially
developed materials and precision manufacture, integration of the components with processing
subsystems, simulation and modeling, and thorough testing for performance and operational
robustness.
23. Spacecraft Structures (MCTL 9.5. 1): These technologies cover the development and
production of dimensionally stable structures for spacecraft which employ techniques for control
of structural distortion, including materials designed for zero coefficient of thermal expansion
designs to prevent structural outgassing in orbit, and materials that provide high strength and
high stiffness. Also included are analysis techniques used to simulate the dynamic interaction of
the structure with the spacecraft control system and to provide the means to define a design with
the required stability characteristics for precision structures such as optical systems and antennas
or with large flexible appendages such as solar panels. This section also covers sensors and
actuators used for spacecraft vibration control.
24. Vehicle Survivability (MCTL 9.7): These technologies enhance the survivability of US
aerospace vehicles to threats of detection and attack by enemy forces. Included under this
category are signature-control for avoiding or delaying detection and other measures such as
maneuverability or high speed to reduce engagement opportunity after detection has occurred.
Vehicle survivability is achieved or enhanced by denying the enemy the ability to "see" the
vehicle through visual, radar, radiated heat, and noise signatures or communications signals.
25. Virtual Reality: Virtual reality technologies are actually a combination of those
encompassed by Dynamic Training and Simulation (MCTL 4.1.2), Image Processing (MCTL
4.1.4), and Hard Real-Time Systems (MCTL 4.2.4). Dynamic Training and Simulation covers
techniques that allow operator feedback into real-time control functions that enhance realism by
coordinated multisensor operator inputs. Hard Real-Time Systems involve the processing of data
by a computer system providing a required level of service, as a function of available resources,
within a guaranteed response time when stimulated by an external event. These technologies
enable a human to efficiently operate complex systems from a remote location or 'project"
himself into an artificial environment for purposes such as command and control.
| Appendix 7: Contributions of Technologies to Systems |
| Technology (see Appendix 6 for descriptions): | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| System | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | #11 | #12 | #13 | #14 | #15 | #16 | #17 | #18 | #19 | #20 | #21 | #22 | #23 | #24 | #25 | Sum | |
| 1 | TAV | 10 | 20 | 30 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 5 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | OTV | 5 | 20 | 40 | 20 | 15 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | OMV | 10 | 20 | 20 | 15 | 25 | 10 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Mod Sys | 15 | 20 | 45 | 20 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | GSRT | 20 | 10 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 25 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | S-GPS | 20 | 20 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | SPATRACS | 30 | 10 | 30 | 30 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | WX F'cast | 55 | 35 | 10 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | SMASS | 20 | 10 | 25 | 15 | 30 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | Iono. F'cast | 10 | 45 | 15 | 30 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | Holo. Proj. | 5 | 15 | 10 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 12 | HEL | 25 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 10 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 13 | KEW | 20 | 40 | 15 | 25 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | HPMW | 5 | 45 | 5 | 5 | 40 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 | PB | 5 | 5 | 5 | 45 | 40 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | WX C3 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 50 | 15 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | Mirror | 25 | 25 | 50 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 | Ast. Det | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 50 | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 | Ast. Neg | 35 | 65 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judgments on Percentage Dependance of Each System on Each Critical Technology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appendix 8: Spacelift Vehicle Descriptions
Delta 11 7925
Developed from the Thor intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) and Vanguard upper stages
in 1959 by the Douglas Aircraft Company, the Delta II uses a single RS27 single-start liquid bi-propellant (liquid oxygen-kerosene) engine producing 210k lbs of thrust at sea level with two
Rocketdyne verniers providing roll control. A cluster of solid rocket strap-ons around the base of
the first stage can be added for additional launch thrust. The 7925 version of Delta II can deliver
approximately 11,000 lbs to a 200 NM low earth orbit (LEO) (28.71). Cape Canaveral, with its
two Delta launch pads, is the only currently active launch complex. Vehicle integration and
checkout typically takes place at the Cape over a 16-week period prior to launch (eight weeks
vertical stack time). Cost to commercial users is about $50M per launch at 1990 rates.
Production was closed down in 1984, but the Shuttle failure in January 1986 resulted in
production reactivation. In January 1987, the Air Force awarded a production contract for the
Delta II as the medium launch vehicle to launch the network of GPS Navstar satellites after that
requirement had been off-loaded from the Shuttle.
Zenit
The Russian SL-16 (Zenit) began- flight testing with a suborbital flight on 13 April 1985. It is
the first new Russian launcher developed since 1972. The first stage of the Zenit booster is the
Energia strap-on (SL-17). There is a two-stage version (Zenit 2) and a three-stage version (Zenit
3). The Zenit uses four RD-170 gimbaled rocket motors burning liquid oxygen and kerosene
producing 1.63 million pounds of thrust at sea level. The second stage uses a single RD-120
fixed reignitable engine producing 186.5k lbs of thrust. Zenit 2 is capable of placing an
encapsulated payload canister with a standardized interface weighing 30,000 lbs into a 100 NM
LEO (51.6') from the Tyuratam spaceport. Payload volume is 9OM3 for the 13.65m long
shroud.
Zenit is assembled horizontally, with the payload integrated on stage 2 before stage 1/2
mating. Assembly of the vehicle alone requires 80 hours increasing to 116 hours with the
payload. Transfer to one of two pads is by rail; erection and launch processing is highly
automated, requiring 21-80 hours between initial integration and launch.
The Soviets began discussions for a cooperative launch arrangement with the Australian
government in 1986. The program would offer equatorial launches from the Cape York Space
Port to be constructed at Queensland on the northern Australian coast. The Australians intend to
purchase and launch Zenit boosters using local launch crews trained initially by the Soviets. A
similar licensing agreement between the US and Russia should be possible to establish launch
capabilities for the Zenit booster from Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg AFB. A follow-on
manufacturing arrangement might also be possible. A cooperative technology enhancement
program between the two countries to use aluminum-lithium and carbon-carbon composites in
place of the titanium in the manufacture of Zenit could result in a lighter weight booster that is
less expensive to make and can place a larger payload in orbit.
Transatmospheric Vehicle
In-flight oxidizer transfer to a rocket-powered Transatmospheric Vehicle permits achieving orbit
with relatively low weight compared to a fully loaded flight vehicle using a horizontal takeoff
from a runway. The weight of many key components, such as wings and landing gear, is
substantially reduced because of the lower gross takeoff weight. This manned vehicle takes off
like a conventional aircraft under rocket power from two of its seven engines, using jet fuel (JP-5) and a noncryogenic oxidizer hydrogen peroxide. After rendezvous with and oxidizer transfer
from a tanker aircraft, the vehicle ignites all seven of its engines, accelerates to high speed, and
pulls up into a steady climb into orbit. An estimated 5,000 lbs could be carried to a 100 NM
LEO in an encapsulated payload canister with a standardized interface. Noncryogenic, nontoxic
propellants permit the propellant transfer to use existing tankers, and a small aircraft similar in
size to an F-16 could demonstrate the capability and achieve orbit. The concept is sufficiently
simple that relatively little in the way of new facilities or support equipment is required.
Delta Clipper
Delta Clipper is a single stage to orbit (SSTO) fully reusable, vertical takeoff and landing, launch
vehicle making use of a simplified launch infrastructure (clean pad) to lower launch costs. The
vehicle has a gross lift-off weight of approximately 1.4 million pounds and can carry about
10,000 lbs to a 100 NM LEO in an encapsulated payload canister with a standardized interface.
The vehicle uses a ballistic trajectory to achieve and return from orbit, with rocket power
providing the control for landing. It is propelled by cryogenic rocket motors using liquid oxygen
and liquid hydrogen. The vehicle is not normally manned. An upcoming third test flight of a
subscale, proof of concept vehicle, is reportedly to confirm the ability to invert from reentry
attitude to landing attitude.
NASP Derived Vehicle
(Scramjet/Rocket SSTO)
A horizontal takeoff and landing single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle powered by a
hydrogen-fueled propulsion system that integrates ramjet/scramjet engines with small rocket
motors for sustained cruise at Mach 5-15 in the atmosphere and a Mach 25 orbital capability.
The vehicle would use a combination of engines. A conventional jet for slow speed, with ramjets
taking over to carry the craft up to about Mach 6 at which point the scramjets using slush
hydrogen for fuel would take it to near orbital velocity.
Small rocket motors would provide the final push to orbit. Gross takeoff weight is estimated at
917,000 lbs. This vehicle is capable of carrying a 25,000 lbs encapsulated payload canister with
a standardized interface. This equates to a payload mass fraction of 26%. Because of its weight
and takeoff speed requirement, this vehicle would operate from large airfields with long runways
such as those at ACC bomber bases and commercial airfields rated to handle Boeing 747 jumbo
jets.
Two-Stage-to-Orbit (TSTO)
A design for a small two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) system that would take maximum advantage of
off-the-shelf systems. Using a 747-class carrier aircraft, a small launch vehicle could be
deployed at subsonic speeds and moderate altitude (40,000 ft). The advantage gained by the
initial velocity and altitude of the carrier aircraft, combined with the reduced drag and improved
engine performance (rocket engine performance is altitude dependent) would make this feasible
with today's fuels and materials. The spacecraft would be a lifting-body design, to allow
efficient energy management on return from orbit and a safe abort mode. The vehicle would use
an unpowered Space Shuttle-like glide de-orbit, return, and horizontal landing on a conventional
runway. The orbital vehicle would have gross weight including fuel of approximately 150,000
lbs. This is a similar weight to the shuttle Enterprise that was carried and dropped from a 747 for
aerodynamic control and landing tests. The rocket engines would be fueled by liquid oxygen and
slush hydrogen. The craft would be designed to carry a 5,000 lbs encapsulated payload canister
with a standardized interface. Advantages of a TSTO approach include being able to launch
from almost any airport, worldwide, with the addition of equipment to fuel the spacecraft and lift
it onto the carrier aircraft. The carrier aircraft could fly to any location within its range to launch
the spacecraft into the proper orbit. Launching over lightly populated areas or the oceans would
reduce safety problems and eliminate noise problems associated with supersonic flow. Launch
from altitude, as opposed to horizontal takeoff from the ground, would reduce the size of the
wings on the spacecraft considerably, thereby reducing weight of the reentry protection system
and overall spacecraft.
Appendix 9: Launch System Scoring Data
| Delta | Zenit | TAV | DC | NASP | TSTO | |||||||
| Line | Sys. Score: | 0.04271 | Sys. Score: | 0.09957 | Sys. Score: | 0.34106 | Sys. Score: | 0.32869 | Sys. Score: | 0.32123 | Sys. Score: | 0.33728 |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 1 | 30.00% | 0.85% | 80.00% | 2.28% | 80.00% | 2.28% | 80.00% | 2.28% | 80.00% | 2.28% | ||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||
| 5 | 10.00% | 0.07% | 10.00% | 0.07% | 10.00% | 0.07% | 10.00% | 0.07% | 10.00% | 0.07% | ||
| 6 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||||
| 10 | ||||||||||||
| 11 | ||||||||||||
| 12 | 10.00% | 0.13% | 90.00% | 1.19% | 90.00% | 1.19% | 90.00% | 1.19% | 90.00% | 1.19% | ||
| 13 | 10.00% | 0.26% | 90.00% | 2.38% | 90.00% | 2.38% | 90.00% | 2.38% | 90.00% | 2.38% | ||
| 14 | ||||||||||||
| 15 | ||||||||||||
| 16 | ||||||||||||
| 17 | 10.00% | 0.05% | 50.00% | 0.26% | 50.00% | 0.26% | 50.00% | 0.26% | 50.00% | 0.26% | ||
| 18 | ||||||||||||
| 19 | ||||||||||||
| 20 | ||||||||||||
| 21 | ||||||||||||
| 22 | ||||||||||||
| 23 | 10.00% | 0.11% | 90.00% | 1.00% | 90.00% | 1.00% | 90.00% | 1.00% | 90.00% | 1.00% | ||
| 24 | 20.00% | 0.27% | 80.00% | 1.07% | 80.00% | 1.07% | 80.00% | 1.07% | 80.00% | 1.07% | ||
| 25 | ||||||||||||
| 26 | ||||||||||||
| 27 | ||||||||||||
| Delta | Zenit | TAV | DC | NASP | TSTO | |||||||
| Line | Sys. Score: | 0.04271 | Sys. Score: | 0.09957 | Sys. Score: | 0.34106 | Sys. Score: | 0.32869 | Sys. Score: | 0.32123 | Sys. Score: | 0.33728 |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 28 | 10.00% | 0.06% | 90.00% | 0.52% | 90.00% | 0.52% | 90.00% | 0.52% | 90.00% | 0.52% | ||
| 29 | ||||||||||||
| 30 | ||||||||||||
| 31 | 90.00% | 0.82% | 90.00% | 0.82% | 90.00% | 0.82% | 90.00% | 0.82% | ||||
| 32 | ||||||||||||
| 33 | ||||||||||||
| 34 | 90.00% | 0.85% | 90.00% | 0.85% | 90.00% | 0.85% | 90.00% | 0.85% | ||||
| 35 | 50.00% | 0.42% | 50.00% | 0.42% | 50.00% | 0.42% | 50.00% | 0.42% | ||||
| 36 | 10.00% | 0.03% | 90.00% | 0.30% | 90.00% | 0.30% | 90.00% | 0.30% | 90.00% | 0.30% | ||
| 37 | ||||||||||||
| 38 | ||||||||||||
| 39 | 90.00% | 0.78% | 90.00% | 0.78% | 90.00% | 0.78% | 90.00% | 0.78% | ||||
| 40 | ||||||||||||
| 41 | ||||||||||||
| 42 | 90.00% | 1.23% | 90.00% | 1.23% | 90.00% | 1.23% | 90.00% | 1.23% | ||||
| 43 | 90.00% | 0.63% | 90.00% | 0.63% | 90.00% | 0.63% | 90.00% | 0.63% | ||||
| 44 | ||||||||||||
| 45 | ||||||||||||
| 46 | 90.00% | 0.82% | 90.00% | 0.82% | 90.00% | 0.82% | 90.00% | 0.82% | ||||
| 47 | ||||||||||||
| 48 | ||||||||||||
| 49 | 90.00% | 1.15% | 90.00% | 1.15% | 90.00% | 1.15% | 90.00% | 1.15% | ||||
| Delta | Zenit | TAV | DC | NASP | TSTO | |||||||
| Line | Sys. Score: | 0.04271 | Sys. Score: | 0.09957 | Sys. Score: | 0.34106 | Sys. Score: | 0.32869 | Sys. Score: | 0.32123 | Sys. Score: | 0.33728 |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 50 | 90.00% | 0.44% | 90.00% | 0.44% | 90.00% | 0.44% | 90.00% | 0.44% | ||||
| 51 | ||||||||||||
| 52 | 10.00% | 0.12% | 50.00% | 0.61% | 50.00% | 0.61% | 50.00% | 0.61% | 50.00% | 0.61% | ||
| 53 | 10.00% | 0.12% | 50.00% | 0.61% | 50.00% | 0.61% | 50.00% | 0.61% | 50.00% | 0.61% | ||
| 54 | ||||||||||||
| 55 | ||||||||||||
| 56 | ||||||||||||
| 57 | ||||||||||||
| 58 | ||||||||||||
| 59 | ||||||||||||
| 60 | ||||||||||||
| 61 | 50.00% | 0.66% | 50.00% | 0.66% | 50.00% | 0.66% | 50.00% | 0.66% | ||||
| 62 | ||||||||||||
| 63 | ||||||||||||
| 64 | ||||||||||||
| 65 | ||||||||||||
| 66 | 90.00% | 0.53% | 90.00% | 0.53% | 90.00% | 0.53% | 90.00% | 0.53% | ||||
| 67 | 50.00% | 0.22% | 50.00% | 0.22% | 90.00% | 0.40% | 50.00% | 0.22% | ||||
| 68 | ||||||||||||
| 69 | 10.00% | 0.26% | 90.00% | 2.38% | 90.00% | 2.38% | 90.00% | 2.38% | 90.00% | 2.38% | ||
| 70 | ||||||||||||
| Delta | Zenit | TAV | DC | NASP | TSTO | |||||||
| Line | Sys. Score: | 0.04271 | Sys. Score: | 0.09957 | Sys. Score: | 0.34106 | Sys. Score: | 0.32869 | Sys. Score: | 0.32123 | Sys. Score: | 0.33728 |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 71 | 50.00% | 0.85% | 90.00% | 1.53% | 70.00% | 1.19% | 60.00% | 1.02% | 90.00% | 1.53% | ||
| 72 | 70.00% | 1.19% | 90.00% | 1.53% | 60.00% | 1.02% | 60.00% | 1.02% | 20.00% | 0.34% | 60.00% | 1.02% |
| 73 | 50.00% | 0.23% | 90.00% | 0.41% | 70.00% | 0.32% | 70.00% | 0.32% | 70.00% | 0.32% | ||
| 74 | 10.00% | 0.05% | 50.00% | 0.23% | 40.00% | 0.18% | 60.00% | 0.27% | 50.00% | 0.23% | ||
| 75 | 10.00% | 0.05% | 100.00% | 0.45% | 100.00% | 0.45% | 100.00% | 0.45% | 100.00% | 0.45% | ||
| 76 | 10.00% | 0.05% | 70.00% | 0.32% | 70.00% | 0.32% | 70.00% | 0.32% | 70.00% | 0.32% | 70.00% | 0.32% |
| 77 | 90.00% | 0.41% | 10.00% | 0.05% | 90.00% | 0.41% | 90.00% | 0.41% | ||||
| 78 | 30.00% | 0.14% | 50.00% | 0.23% | 50.00% | 0.23% | 50.00% | 0.23% | 50.00% | 0.23% | ||
| 79 | 90.00% | 1.84% | 50.00% | 1.02% | 90.00% | 1.84% | 90.00% | 1.84% | 90.00% | 1.84% | 90.00% | 1.84% |
| 80 | 100.00% | 0.41% | 50.00% | 0.20% | 100.00% | 0.41% | 100.00% | 0.41% | ||||
| 81 | 70.00% | 0.29% | 10.00% | 0.04% | ||||||||
| 82 | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | ||
| 83 | 100.00% | 0.41% | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | 100.00% | 0.41% | ||||
| 84 | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | 90.00% | 0.37% | ||||
| 85 | 80.00% | 1.09% | 80.00% | 1.09% | 80.00% | 1.09% | 90.00% | 1.23% | 80.00% | 1.09% | 80.00% | 1.09% |
| 86 | 50.00% | 0.68% | 50.00% | 0.68% | 50.00% | 0.68% | 50.00% | 0.68% | ||||
| 87 | ||||||||||||
| 88 | ||||||||||||
| 89 | ||||||||||||
| 90 | ||||||||||||
| 91 | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | ||||
| 92 | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | ||
| 93 | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% | 50.00% | 0.10% |
| 94 | ||||||||||||
| 95 | 50.00% | 0.10% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | ||
| 96 | 50.00% | 0.10% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | ||
| 97 | 30.00% | 0.06% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | 70.00% | 0.14% | ||
| 98 | ||||||||||||
| 99 | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | ||
| 100 | 50.00% | 0.40% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 10.00% | 0.08% | 90.00% | 0.71% | ||
| 101 | 50.00% | 0.40% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | 90.00% | 0.71% | ||
Appendix 10: Scoring Data for Combined Spacelift Systems
| TAV (#1) | TAV + OTV (#2) | TAV + OTV + Mod. Sys. (#4) | ||||
| Line | System Score: | 0.34106 | System Score: | 0.36761 | System Score: | 0.37653 |
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 1 | 80.00% | 2.28% | 90.00% | 2.56% | 90.00% | 2.56% |
| 2 | ||||||
| 3 | ||||||
| 4 | ||||||
| 5 | 10.00% | 0.07% | 20.00% | 0.15% | 20.00% | 0.15% |
| 6 | ||||||
| 7 | ||||||
| 8 | ||||||
| 9 | ||||||
| 10 | ||||||
| 11 | ||||||
| 12 | 90.00% | 1.19% | 95.00% | 1.26% | 95.00% | 1.26% |
| 13 | 90.00% | 2.38% | 95.00% | 2.51% | 95.00% | 2.51% |
| 14 | ||||||
| 15 | ||||||
| 16 | ||||||
| 17 | 50.00% | 0.26% | 70.00% | 0.36% | 70.00% | 0.36% |
| 18 | ||||||
| 19 | ||||||
| 20 | ||||||
| 21 | ||||||
| 22 | ||||||
| 23 | 90.00% | 1.00% | 90.00% | 1.00% | 90.00% | 1.00% |
| 24 | 80.00% | 1.07% | 95.00% | 1.27% | 95.00% | 1.27% |
| 25 | ||||||
| 26 | ||||||
| 27 | ||||||
| Line | TAV (#1) | TAV + OTV (#2) | TAV + OTV + Mod. Sys. (#4) | |||
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 28 | 90.00% | 0.52% | 95.00% | 0.55% | 95.00% | 0.55% |
| 29 | ||||||
| 30 | ||||||
| 31 | 90.00% | 0.82% | 95.00% | 0.86% | 95.00% | 0.86% |
| 32 | ||||||
| 33 | ||||||
| 34 | 90.00% | 0.85% | 95.00% | 0.89% | 95.00% | 0.89% |
| 35 | 50.00% | 0.42% | 50.00% | 0.42% | 50.00% | 0.42% |
| 36 | 90.00% | 0.30% | 95.00% | 0.32% | 95.00% | 0.32% |
| 37 | ||||||
| 38 | ||||||
| 39 | 90.00% | 0.78% | 95.00% | 0.82% | 95.00% | 0.82% |
| 40 | ||||||
| 41 | ||||||
| 42 | 90.00% | 1.23% | 95.00% | 1.30% | 95.00% | 1.30% |
| 43 | 90.00% | 0.63% | 90.00% | 0.63% | 90.00% | 0.63% |
| 44 | ||||||
| 45 | ||||||
| 46 | 90.00% | 0.82% | 95.00% | 0.86% | 95.00% | 0.86% |
| 47 | ||||||
| 48 | ||||||
| 49 | 90.00% | 1.15% | 95.00% | 1.21% | 95.00% | 1.21% |
| Line | TAV (#1) | TAV + OTV (#2) | TAV + OTV + Mod. Sys. (#4) | |||
| Item | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted | Line Item | Weighted |
| No. | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score | Score | Line Score |
| 50 | 90.00% | 0.44% | 95.00% | 0.46% | 95.00% | 0.46% |
| 51 | ||||||
| 52 | 50.00% | 0.61% | 70.00% | 0.86% | 70.00% | 0.86% |
| 53 | 50.00% | 0.61% | 70.00% | 0.86% | 70.00% | 0.86% |
| 54 | ||||||
| 55 | ||||||
| 56 | ||||||
| 57 | ||||||
| 58 | ||||||
| 59 | ||||||
| 60 | ||||||
| 61 | 50.00% | 0.66% | 60.00% | 0.79% | 60.00% | 0.79% |
| 62 | ||||||
| 63 | ||||||
| 64 | ||||||