COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

Transcription

1 BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND INSTRUCTION APRIL 2017 Nuclear, Space, Missile, Command and Control COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY LAUNCH MISSION RISK CLASSIFICATION ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available for downloading or ordering on the e-publishing website at RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication OPR: HQ AFSPC/A2/3/6SR Certified by: HQ AFSPC/A2/3/6S (Col Robert J. Pavelko) Pages: 11 This instruction implements portions of AFI , Space Launch Operations, and AFSPCHOI13-120, Satellite Vehicle Risk Classification. It establishes responsibilities pertaining to Payload and Launch Mission Risk Classification and is applicable to: Headquarters Air Force Space Command (HQ AFSPC); Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC); and Fourteenth Air Force (14 AF). This publication does not apply to Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Units or the Air National Guard (ANG). The intent is to provide SMC/CC with launch mission risk classifications to inform risk acceptance decisions. The authorities to waive wing/unit level requirements in this publication are identified with a Tier ( T-0, T-1, T-2, T-3 ) number following the compliance statement. Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained IAW Air Force Manual (AFMAN) , Management of Records, and disposed of IAW Air Force Records Information Management System (AFRIMS) Records Disposition Schedule (RDS). Send comments and suggested improvements on an AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication, through appropriate command channels to HQ AFSPC A2/3/6SR, 150 Vandenberg Street, Suite 1105, Peterson AFB, CO Organizations requesting document changes should ensure all units that could be affected by the change are included as informational addressees. Subordinate organizations are encouraged to supplement this instruction. Supplements will be coordinated through appropriate command channels and approved by HQ AFSPC A2/3/6. Supplements will not lessen the requirements nor change the basic content or intent of this instruction.

2 2 AFSPCI APRIL Overview: Chapter 1 OVERVIEW Prior to 2011, all National Security Space (NSS) payloads were considered as Class A representing the most critical payloads. Launch vehicles (LVs) that launch Class A payloads have met the highest level of certification requirements with commensurate demonstrated reliability and must have the lowest risk tolerance rating. Class B, C and D payloads are considered more tolerant to risk, and can be flown on LVs with progressively higher risk This instruction defines the process on how payload risk classification will be accomplished and how the resultant risk classifications are incorporated into the overall launch mission risk classification. It provides the SMC/CC the flexibility to certify flight worthiness commensurate with payload risk tolerance. Risk Classification will not take precedence over Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) requirements documentation nor affect system design, acquisition, or build methodology prior to the launch flow decision process. Unlaunched missions over a year from initial launch capability (ILC) will be reassessed annually, to provide opportunity for updated risk acceptance decisions. Payloads introduced to an unlaunched mission under a year from ILC will reviewed on an individual basis for potential changes to launch mission risk classification. Consistent mission assurance (MA) will preserve operational flexibility in a Contested, Degraded, or Operationally-limited (CDO) environment.

3 AFSPCI APRIL Chapter 2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1. Headquarters, Air Force Space Command Director, Integrated Air, Space, Cyberspace and ISR Operations (HQ AFSPC/A2/3/6) will: Assign launch mission risk classification (ref: Para. 3.1.) informed by the Risk Classification System in Chapter 3. (T-2) Approve/sign Launch Mission Risk Classification Memorandum annually NLT 30 June. (T-2) Chair Launch Mission Risk Classification Board. (T-2) Chief, Space Operations Division (HQ AFSPC/A2/3/6S) will: Serve as the AFSPC OPR for launch mission risk classification. (T-2) Review/validate payload weighting criteria annually NLT 30 April. (T-2) Advise MAJCOM Payload POCs of missions requiring payload risk assessment and request risk data collection. (T-2) Chair Payload Risk Classification Board. (T-2) Review scoring recommendations received from MAJCOM Payload POCs. (T-2) Verify consistent scoring methodology across all programs. (T-2) Convert individual payload recommendations into aggregate launch mission risk classification recommendations. (T-2) Launch, Ranges and Airfields Branch (HQ AFSPC/A2/3/6SR) will: Convene Payload Risk Classification Board annually NLT 31 May. (T-2) Advise launch mission risk classification recommendations as applicable. (T-2) Convene Launch Mission Risk Classification Board annually NLT 30 June. (T- 2) MAJCOM Payload POCs (e.g. HQ AFSPC/A5S, A2/3/6S) will: Assess payload risk in coordination with appropriate SMC Directorates, 14 AF, and/or payload owner (as required) using criteria in Table 1.1.: Payload Risk Classification System. Utilize payload risk classification scoring details in Attachment 2 to assist with risk classification. (T-2) Provide payload risk classification recommendation to AFSPC/A2/3/6S at the Payload Risk Classification Board. (T-3) 2.2. Space and Missile Systems Center Commander SMC (SMC/CC) will:

4 4 AFSPCI APRIL Issue a directive publication for the payload and LV System Program Offices (SPOs) to utilize the resultant payload risk classifications while developing and executing payload, satellite vehicle, and LV mission risk acceptance activities executed by SMC. (T-2) Ensure the publication addresses effects of risk acceptance decisions on fleet management. (T-2) Ensure payload risk classification does not replace formal requirements documentation for design reliability. Payload/SC design & development risk tolerance should be determined by the capability requirements found in JCIDS requirements documentation. Non-JCIDS programs/projects payload risk classification should consider funding source reliability requirements. (T-2) Coordinate guidance with HQ AFSPC A2/3/6 before publishing. (T-2) Chief Engineer, SMC (SMC/EN) will: Develop standardized center-wide directive publication for the payload and LV SPOs to utilize the resultant payload risk classifications while developing and executing payload, satellite vehicle, and LV risk acceptance activities executed by SMC. (T-2) Serve as the SMC office of primary responsibility (OPR) for utilizing payload risk classification results and verify consistent methodology across all payload and LV programs. (T-2) Coordinate guidance with HQ AFSPC A2/3/6 before publishing. (T-2) Director, Launch Enterprise (SMC/LE) will: Develop standard procedures for launch service procurement and risk acceptance activities for differing launch mission risk classifications. (T-2) Coordinate standard procedures with HQ AFSPC A2/3/6. (T-2) Directors, Payload Program (SMC Payload SPOs) will: Develop standard procedures for payload recurring risk acceptance activities for differing payload risk classifications. (T-2) Coordinate standard procedures with MAJCOM Payload POCs. (T-2) th Air Force Commander, 14th Air Force Advise AFSPC A2/3/6 of changing operational requirements that could impact launch mission/payload risk classification determinations. (T-2) th Air Force A3/ Participate in the Launch Mission Risk Classification Board. (T-2) Participate in the Payload Risk Classification Board (T-2) Advise MAJCOM Payload POCs during evaluation and assessment of payload risk classification. (T-2)

5 AFSPCI APRIL Chapter 3 PAYLOAD RISK CLASSIFICATION 3.1. Note. Overall launch mission risk classification can be no lower than the least risk tolerant rated payload. Additionally, aggregation of lower-rated payloads may increase the overall mission risk classification Classification Criteria. Table 3.1 depicts the seven attributes considered in payload risk classification. Scoring is done on a 1000 point scale. The seven characterizations weights total is 100 (vertical axis) and each is scored on a 0 thru 10 point system (horizontal axis). The score for each payload is calculated by multiplying each characterization s weight by the 0-10 score and subsequently adding the totals (see Attachment 2). Class A payload scoring results are from , class B , class C , and class D scoring results are from 99-0 reflecting increasing levels of risk tolerance. Table 3.1. Payload Risk Classification System. Payload Risk Classification (Payload Class) Characterization Class-A Class-B Class-C Class-D National Significance (30 point weight) Very High High Medium Low to Medium Complexity (8 point weight) Very High to High High to Medium Medium to Low Low Mission Lifetime or Constellation Health (20 point weight) Long, >5 years, one-of-a-kind, or fragile constellation health Medium, 2-5 years, or robust constellation health Short, <2 years Short, <2 years Cost (20 point weight) High High to Medium Medium to Low Low Launch Constraints (10 point weight) Critical Medium Few Few to none In-Flight Maintenance N/A Not feasible or difficult May be feasible May be feasible and planned

6 6 AFSPCI APRIL 2017 (5 point weight) Alternative Mission, Research, or Re-flight (7 point weight) No alternative or re-flight opportunities Few or no alternative or re-flight opportunities Some or few alternative or reflight opportunities Significant alternative or re-flight opportunities National Significance : Individual payload s contribution(s) to instruments of national power are economic, diplomatic, informational and military. Although this assessment is against the individual payload, consider the impact of this constellation to the government in achieving its national objectives. A2/3/6 and A2/3/6S will consider the aggregated mission s national significance during the Launch Mission Risk Classification Board Complexity : Consider the diverse interactions between or among payload components, ground/user segment dependencies software, command and control (C2) system(s), user system(s) and/or organizational elements. How integrated are the SC s internal systems and/or external System-of-Systems (SoS), i.e. ground/user segments, command & control systems, user-systems, organizations, etc.? How much impact would the loss of the payload have on the SoS? How difficult is the SC to integrate with the LV? Consider Standard Interface Specification (SIS) compliance/mission-unique integration complexities. How much interaction do LV and SC systems have during pre-launch testing and during flight? Cost and/or programmatic factors resulting from any requirement to integrate onto more than one launch vehicle (e.g. Delta IV, Atlas V and Falcon 9) are not to be considered for any characteristic of risk classification Mission Lifetime or Constellation Health : This characterization is how long a single payload, SC, or a balanced architecture supports the operational requirement. How long is a single payload expected to fulfill its mission requirements? Effect of this payload on constellation achieving/maintaining operational state and maintaining its intended warfighter requirement. Consider the payload s contribution to the overall system providing desired capability at the desired level; How much impact would the loss of the payload have on the constellation s ability to fulfill its mission requirements and/or on the entire architecture meeting its requirements? This attribute will be assessed based on both engineering-based, uncontested analysis as well as threat-based resilience assessments. For missions that do not perform in a constellation, the life expectancy of the mission should be considered Cost : For purposes of risk classification, payload costs are categorized as follows: Very High $750M or greater; High $100M to $749M; Medium $50M to $99M; Low less than $49M using the Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) or equivalent. The APUC is calculated by dividing total procurement cost by the number of articles to be procured. Total procurement cost includes flyaway cost (that is, recurring and nonrecurring costs associated with production of the item such as hardware/software, systems engineering, engineering changes and warranties) plus the costs of procuring technical data, training, support equipment, and initial spares. Payload POCs will consider individual payload costs; the aggregate Payload/SC costs will be considered when determining the Mission Risk

7 AFSPCI APRIL Classification. LV procurement costs are not considered for risk classification, nor are nonrecurring Payload/SC/LV integration costs. Mission-specific integration costs will be considered as part of the Complexity characteristic Launch Constraints: How important is launching at a specific time or during a specific period to the mission s requirements? How demanding are the payload s orbital insertion, launch window, launch window revisit opportunities, collision avoidance, and orbital debris mitigation compliance requirements? How much are external support agencies or stakeholders impacted if the launch is delayed? Consider range and/or on-orbit/terrestrial launch support requirements (e.g. HTV), C2 limitations; international considerations (e.g. WGS-6). Payload/SC/LV compatibility/integration is covered under the Complexity characteristic In-Flight Maintenance: Payload or SC s ability to overcome deficiencies postlaunch (e.g., contingency plans, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs), software modifications, improper insertion recovery; system redundancy; fuel/energy reserves; contingency payload or SC telemetry, tracking and C2 capabilities and systems) Alternative Mission, Research, or Re-flight Opportunities: How many alternatives or reflight opportunities exist to fulfill the mission requirements, e.g. commercial, NSS, or terrestrial options? How difficult would it be to reconstitute the payload(s) capability? Consider meeting payload requirements through alternative means or architectures, even at degraded capability and/or increased cost. Also consider: existing payload or SC production throughput; payload or SC production flexibility to meet alternative launch schedule options; flexibility in Payload/SC/LV integration timelines; rideshare opportunities The following items should not be considered when scoring Payloads: LV Capability: Of prospective vehicles to lift, integrate, etc Launch opportunities: Either improved or decreased Integration: Achieving/maintaining integration on multiple LVs Cost: Of prospective LVs Advocacy perception: Programmatic, not mission risk issue STEPHEN N. WHITING, Brig Gen, USAF Director of Integrated Air, Space, Cyberspace and ISR Operations

8 8 AFSPCI APRIL 2017 References Attachment 1 GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION United States Air Force Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide, 26 October 11 AFI Space Launch Maintenance and Mission Assurance, 22 September 2014 AFI Publications and Forms Management 1 December 2015 AFSPCI Spacelift Operations, 29 August 2013 Prescribed Forms No forms are prescribed by this instruction Adopted Forms AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication Abbreviations and Acronyms AFSPC Air Force Space Command APUC Average Procurement Unit Cost C2 Command and Control CDO Contested, Degraded, or Operationally-limited JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System LV Launch Vehicle MA Mission Assurance NSS National Security Space OPR Office of Primary Responsibility SC Spacecraft SIS Standard Interface Specification SPO System Program Office SMC Space and Missile Systems Center TTP Tactics, Techniques and Procedures Terms Mission Assurance (MA) The disciplined application of general systems engineering, quality, and management principles toward the goal of maximizing mission success. MA activities are conducted by the corresponding Program Office and launch site personnel throughout the system acquisition life cycle and result in the establishment of the mission risk assessment within the Space Flight Worthiness Certification (SFWC) process and continues through launch.

9 AFSPCI APRIL Launch Mission Risk Classification For the purposes of this document, Launch Mission Risk Classification refers to the aggregate risk classification for all SC and payloads to be delivered to orbit by an LV. Payload For the purposes of this document, Payload refers to the mission-performing portions of a spacecraft. This includes propulsive and/or separating auxiliary payload/sc carriers (e.g propulsive ESPA, SHERPA, etc.). Spacecraft (SC) For the purposes of this document, Spacecraft refers to a man-made object that either orbits a central body or is in an escape trajectory from that central body (e.g. a satellite bus capable of carrying one or more payloads).

10 10 AFSPCI APRIL 2017 Attachment 2 SAMPLE PAYLOAD RISK CLASSIFICATION Figure A2.1. Sample Payload Risk Classification.

11 AFSPCI APRIL Table A2.1. Sample Payload Risk Classification Notes. Scoring is on a 1000 point scale Class A Class B Class C Class D 0-99 Each characterization will be scored on a 1 thru 10 point system A 100 point weighted scale total is distributed between the seven characterizations depending on risk assessment priority. Below is the weighted point distribution: National Significance 30 point weight Complexity 8 point weight Mission Lifetime or Constellation Health 20 point weight Cost 20 point weight Launch Constraint 10 point weight In-flight Maintenance 5 point weight Alternate Research Opportunities or Re-flight Opportunities 7 point weight