The document compares the operational complexity and costs of the Space Shuttle versus the Sea Launch Zenit rocket. [1] The Space Shuttle was designed for performance but not operational efficiency, resulting in costly ground, mission planning, and flight operations. [2] In contrast, the Zenit rocket was designed from the start to have automated and robust processes to keep operations simple and costs low. [3] The key lesson is that designing a launch system with operational requirements in mind from the beginning leads to much more efficient operations long-term.

1. Design for Operations
Space Shuttle vs. Sea Launch
Bo Bejmuk

2. Shuttle Sea Launch
Courtesy of the Sea Launch Company
Space Shuttle designed for ascent
performance, multi functionality Zenit Rocket designed to strict
and minimum development cost operational requirements
Result: Result:
Costly ground operations Automation and robust design
Costly mission planning Simple and cost effective operations
Costly flight operations Great benefit to cost of ownership 2

3. Space Shuttle – Magnificent flying system
but difficult and costly to operate
3

4. Initial Naive Concept of Ground Operations
4

5. Operational Reality
NASA, KSC Photo, dated September 25, 1979, index number “KSC-79PC-500” 5

6. Lack of Robustness and Design Margins
Complicated flight Planning and Increased Cost
Problem
• The launch probability predictions for early Shuttle flights was less than
50%
– More than half of the measured winds aloft violated the vehicle’s certified
boundaries
Corrective Actions
• System Integration led the evolution from a single ascent I-load, through
seasonal I-loads, alternate I-loads, and finally arriving at DOLILU
• This process extended over a 10+ year period
• Concurrently the Program executed 3 load cycles (Integrated Vehicle
Baseline Characterization - IVBC) combined with hardware modifications
to expand vehicle certified envelopes
• Current launch probability is well in excess of 95%
Lesson
• Commit to a DOLILU approach during early development
– Significantly improves margins
• Use additional margins on not well understood environments
6
• Will enhance robustness and simplify operations

7. Ascent Design Operations Evolution
100 High
Lesson Learned: Reliance on Operations Process
Percent of Winds Violating Certification (%)
to Maintain Margin is Expensive
Operations Overhead
Ascent Operations
Overhead
50 Med
Certification Violations
0 Low
1975 1985 1995 2005
Seasonal Alternate
Annual Monthly Day-of-Launch 7

8. Day-of-Launch I-Loads Evolution
(10 years +)
Early Flights Present Flights
Single I-Loads DOLILU
Qa Over 50% of winds Qa
violated certified
envelope
Qb Qb
Expanded Certified
Envelope
3-Hour Wind
Variation
Certified Annual Wind
Envelope Variation DOLILU drives toward center of Qa – Qb
envelope and reduces winds violation to < 5%
8

9. Where did We go Wrong?
Problem
• Insufficient definition of operational requirements during
development phase
– Concentration on performance requirements but not on operational
considerations
– Shuttle design organizations were not responsible for operational cost
– Very few incentives for development contractors
Result
• Very labor intensive (high operational cost) vehicle was developed
and put into operations
Lesson
• Must have the Concept of Operations defined
• Define and levy the operational requirements on contractors to
support the Concept of Operations
• Must have continuity and integration between designers, ground
operations, and flight operations requirements during the
developmental phase 9

10. Sea Launch Zenit Rocket Very Efficient and
Easy to Operate Courtesy of the Sea Launch Company
10

11. Launch Platform
Courtesy of the Sea Launch Company 11

12. Assembly and Command Ship
Courtesy of the Sea Launch Company
12

13. Launch
13
Courtesy of the Sea Launch Company

14. Sea Launch – Zenit Derived Launch System
• Major integration of existing and new
elements
– Two stage Ukrainian Zenit
– 3rd stage Russian Block DM
– New payload accommodation &
composite fairing
– Modified semi-submersible oil drilling
platform into a launch pad
– New command and control and rocket
assembly ship
Courtesy of the Sea Launch Company • System was built and brought to
operational state in less than 3.5 years
– 24 flights to date
14

15. Sea Launch Operations
• Integration of rocket stages
and payload at home port in
Long Beach, CA
• Launches performed from the
Equator, 154 degrees west
(south of Hawaii)
Courtesy of the Sea Launch Company
Small Team performs ground checkout and launch
Ground Processing Launch
Team Team*
Americans 80 40
Russians 200 140
Ukrainians 50 50
Norwegians 75 70
Totals 405 300
* Launch Team is a subset of the Ground Processing Team; Ground
Processing team members that are not required to participate in launch at
15
sea are sent back to their companies and are off the Sea Launch payroll

16. Lessons Learned from Sea Launch
• Zenit extremely automated launch vehicle
– Very little interaction with crew during checkout, pre-launch, and
flight
• Single string accountability, no duplications of effort (to
some extent driven by export compliance restrictions)
• Low operational cost benefited from original design criteria
of Zenit
– Rollout to pad, fuel and launch in 90 minutes
– Allows very little time for ground or flight crew involvement
– Imposes requirements for automatic processes
16

17. The Big Lesson
• If we want simple and cost effective
operations we must design for operations
– Shuttle designed for performance and minimum
development cost
– Sea Launch Zenit Rocket designed to strict
operational requirements
• NASA is in control of operations destiny of
new programs
– Narrow window of opportunity
17