Path to Mission Concept Review Michael J. Gazarik Deputy Director for Programs System Engineering...
-
Upload
alban-lawson -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Path to Mission Concept Review Michael J. Gazarik Deputy Director for Programs System Engineering...
Path to Mission Concept ReviewMichael J. Gazarik
Deputy Director for Programs
System Engineering Directorate
NASA Langley Research Center
October 23, 2008
Robert Reisse
CLARREO Study Project Manger
Contributors
Michelle Garn, Paul Speth, Steve Hall
2
Outline
• Science and Engineering Interaction: Key to Mission Success
• Purpose of a Mission Concept Review (MCR)
• Required Products for a Successful MCR
• Schedule of Activities leading to MCR
• Integrated System Engineering Team
• What we need from the Science Community
3
CLARREO & DESDynI• CLARREO & DESDynI are the next Decadal Survey missions
to be addressed by the ESD
– Both missions are directed science missions with individual budget lines. They are managed out of the Earth Systematic Missions (ESM) Program Office located at GSFC
• The CLARREO mission is led by LaRC, with GSFC support
– Draft level 1 requirements & initial international partnership discussions, Fall 2008
– Initial mission concepts, Spring 2009,
– Full technology readiness assessment, MCR October 2009
• The DESDynI is led by JPL, with a significant GSFC contribution
– Draft level 1 requirements & initial international partnership discussions, Fall 2008
– Mission configuration down select, Spring 2009
– Full technology readiness assessment, MCR October 2009
From Steve Volz, Associate Director, Flight Programs, NASA Earth Science Division
6
NASA Mission LifeCycle
• Pre-Phase A: Concept Studies
– MCR: Mission Concept Review
• Phase A: Concept & Technology Development
– SRR: System Requirements Review
• Phase B: Preliminary Design
– PDR: Preliminary Design Review
– Technology Readiness Level should be at least 6
• Phase C: Final Design
– CDR: Critical Design Review
• Phase D: Assembly, Integration & Test
• Phase E: Operations
• Phase F: Closeout
7
Mission Concept Review (MCR)NASA Life Cycle Phases
ProjectLife Cycle Phases
Pre-Phase A:ConceptStudies
Phase A:Concept & Technology
Development
Phase B:Preliminary Design &
Technology Completion
Phase C:Final Design &
Fabrication
Approval for Implementation
FORMULATION IMPLEMENTATION
KDP CProject Life Cycle Gates & Major Events
Operations Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition
Phase E:Operations
& Sustainment
KDP A
Launch
KDP D
Phase D:System Assembly, Int & Test, Launch
KDP B
Phase F:Closeout
Decommissioning
End of Mission
FOOTNOTES
1. Flexibility is allowed in the timing, number, and content of reviews as long as the equivalent information is provided at each KDP and the approach is fully documented in the Project Plan. These reviews are conducted by the project for the independent SRB. See Section 2.5 and Table 2-6.
2. PRR needed for multiple (≥4) system copies. Timing is notional.3. CERRs are established at the discretion of Program Offices.4. For robotic missions, the SRR and the MDR may be combined.5. The ASP and ASM are Agency reviews, not life-cycle reviews.6. Includes recertification, as required. 7. Project Plans are baselined at KDP C and are reviewed and updated as
required, to ensure project content, cost, and budget remain consistent.
Final Archival of Data
KDP F
SMSR, LRR (LV), FRR (LV)
KDP E
Peer Reviews, Subsystem PDRs, Subsystem CDRs, and System Reviews
DRPLARMDR4
Robotic Mission Project Reviews1
MCR SRR PDR CERR3SIR FRR
ACRONYMSASP—Acquisition Strategy Planning MeetingASM—Acquisition Strategy MeetingCDR—Critical Design ReviewCERR—Critical Events Readiness ReviewDR—Decommissioning ReviewFAD—Formulation Authorization DocumentFRR—Flight Readiness ReviewKDP—Key Decision PointLRR—Launch Readiness ReviewMCR—Mission Concept ReviewMDR—Mission Definition ReviewNAR—Non-Advocate Review
ORR—Operational Readiness ReviewPDR—Preliminary Design ReviewPFAR—Post-Flight Assessment ReviewPLAR—Post-Launch Assessment ReviewPNAR—Preliminary Non-Advocate ReviewPRR—Production Readiness ReviewSAR—System Acceptance ReviewSDR—System Definition ReviewSIR—System Integration ReviewSMSR—Safety and Mission Success Review SRR—System Requirements Review
FAD
Draft ProjectRequirements
Launch Readiness Reviews
SDR CDR / PRR2
PDRMCR FRRSRR SIR CERR3PLARSAR
Human Space Flight ProjectReviews1
Re-flights
DR(NAR)(PNAR)
Supporting Reviews
ORRInspections and Refurbishment
Re-enters appropriate life cycle phase if modifications are needed between flights6
End of Flight
PFAR
Preliminary Project Plan
Baseline Project Plan7
ASP5
ORR
ASM5
(NAR)(PNAR)CDR / PRR2
AgencyReviews
NASA Life Cycle Phases
ProjectLife Cycle Phases
Pre-Phase A:ConceptStudies
Phase A:Concept & Technology
Development
Phase B:Preliminary Design &
Technology Completion
Phase C:Final Design &
Fabrication
Approval for Implementation
FORMULATION IMPLEMENTATION
KDP CKDP CProject Life Cycle Gates & Major Events
Operations Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition
Phase E:Operations
& Sustainment
KDP AKDP A
LaunchLaunch
KDP D
Phase D:System Assembly, Int & Test, Launch
KDP B
Phase F:Closeout
Decommissioning
End of MissionEnd of Mission
FOOTNOTES
1. Flexibility is allowed in the timing, number, and content of reviews as long as the equivalent information is provided at each KDP and the approach is fully documented in the Project Plan. These reviews are conducted by the project for the independent SRB. See Section 2.5 and Table 2-6.
2. PRR needed for multiple (≥4) system copies. Timing is notional.3. CERRs are established at the discretion of Program Offices.4. For robotic missions, the SRR and the MDR may be combined.5. The ASP and ASM are Agency reviews, not life-cycle reviews.6. Includes recertification, as required. 7. Project Plans are baselined at KDP C and are reviewed and updated as
required, to ensure project content, cost, and budget remain consistent.
Final Archival of Data
Final Archival of Data
KDP F KDP F
SMSR, LRR (LV), FRR (LV)
KDP E KDP E
Peer Reviews, Subsystem PDRs, Subsystem CDRs, and System Reviews
DRDRPLARPLARMDR4
Robotic Mission Project Reviews1
MCR SRR PDR CERR3SIR FRR
ACRONYMSASP—Acquisition Strategy Planning MeetingASM—Acquisition Strategy MeetingCDR—Critical Design ReviewCERR—Critical Events Readiness ReviewDR—Decommissioning ReviewFAD—Formulation Authorization DocumentFRR—Flight Readiness ReviewKDP—Key Decision PointLRR—Launch Readiness ReviewMCR—Mission Concept ReviewMDR—Mission Definition ReviewNAR—Non-Advocate Review
ORR—Operational Readiness ReviewPDR—Preliminary Design ReviewPFAR—Post-Flight Assessment ReviewPLAR—Post-Launch Assessment ReviewPNAR—Preliminary Non-Advocate ReviewPRR—Production Readiness ReviewSAR—System Acceptance ReviewSDR—System Definition ReviewSIR—System Integration ReviewSMSR—Safety and Mission Success Review SRR—System Requirements Review
FADFAD
Draft ProjectRequirements
Launch Readiness Reviews
SDR CDR / PRR2
PDRMCR FRRSRR SIR CERR3PLARSAR
Human Space Flight ProjectReviews1
Re-flights
DRDR(NAR)(PNAR)
Supporting Reviews
ORRInspections and Refurbishment
Re-enters appropriate life cycle phase if modifications are needed between flights6
End of Flight
PFARPFARPFAR
Preliminary Project PlanPreliminary Project Plan
Baseline Project Plan7
Baseline Project Plan7
ASP5ASP5
ORR
ASM5
(NAR)(PNAR)CDR / PRR2
AgencyReviews
• Related to Key Decision Point (KDP A) – used by NASA to decide if mission should move into Phase A (Formulation)
• Our opportunity to advocate to Agency management and independent review board that mission is well formulated and defined – with rationale for key decisions
8
Roadmap to Mission Concept Review (MCR)
Science Imperatives (Goals), Objectives, QuestionsObjective: Establish a climate benchmark for testing/validation of climate modelsDetailed Science Questions
Level 1 RequirementsFrom the objectives develop level 1 requirements.CLARREO shall measure xx with an accuracy of xx and spatial resolution of xx, etcMCR deliverable: Level 1 Requirements Document
Mission Requirements & Operational ConceptDevelop mission requirements and a concept of operation for the mission from level 1 requirements.MCR deliverable: Preliminary Mission Requirements Document MCR deliverable: Preliminary Mission Operations Concept Document
Mission DesignRobust Baseline Mission Design. Include descope options, cost, & scheduleMCR deliverable: Mission Concept Report, Schedule, Cost Analysis
Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & MitigationAssess technology maturity and develop a risk assessment & mitigation approach.MCR deliverable: Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation Document
Mission Concept Review (MCR) – Must pass this review to move from the Pre-Phase A phase (i.e., Concept Studies) into Phase A (i.e., Concept and Technology Development)
Iterate
Initial conceptcomplete?
No
Yes
9
MCR Deliverables• Level 1 Requirements
• Systems Drivers, strawman needed to start mission analysis
– Preliminary Mission Requirements Document
– Preliminary Mission Operations Concept Document
• System Driven & Programmatic, mission analysis needed to develop these
– Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation
– Mission Acquisition Approach
– Formulation Authorization Document (FAD) required to enter phase A
• Cost Analysis Internal and External to Project
• Work Breakdown Structure
• Schedule
– Full Project Lifecycle Schedule
– Detailed Phase A Schedule
• Other documents required
– Architecture & System Concept Report
– Mission Concept Report
– Institutional Capabilities
– V&V draft for risk reduction
– Draft Project Plan
– Systems Engineering Management Plan
– MCR Presentation Package
– Draft Configuration Management Plan
10
CLARREO MissionWBS
CLARREO MissionWBS
WBS 1.0Project
Management
WBS 1.0Project
Management
WBS 2.0 Systems
Engineering
WBS 2.0 Systems
Engineering
WBS 3.0Safety & Mission
Assurance
WBS 3.0Safety & Mission
Assurance
WBS 4.0Science
WBS 4.0Science
WBS 5.0Payload
WBS 5.0Payload
WBS 6.0SpacecraftWBS 6.0Spacecraft
WBS 7.0Mission
Operations
WBS 7.0Mission
Operations
WBS 8.0 Launch
Systems
WBS 8.0 Launch
Systems
WBS 9.0Ground Systems
WBS 9.0Ground Systems
WBS 10.0Systems
Integration and Test
WBS 10.0Systems
Integration and Test
WBS 11.0Education &
Public Outreach
WBS 11.0Education &
Public Outreach
WBS 1.1Project Mgmt
WBS 1.1Project Mgmt
WBS 1.2 Business
Mgmt
WBS 1.2 Business
Mgmt
WBS 1.3Project
Planning & Schedule
Mgmt
WBS 1.3Project
Planning & Schedule
Mgmt
WBS 1.4Project
Reviews
WBS 1.4Project
Reviews
WBS 1.5Facilities
WBS 1.5Facilities
WBS 1.6Travel
WBS 1.6Travel
WBS 2.1Requiret’sDevel. & Mgmt.
WBS 2.1Requiret’sDevel. & Mgmt.
WBS 2,2 Risk MgmtWBS 2,2 Risk Mgmt
WBS 2,3 Configura-tion Mgmt
WBS 2,3 Configura-tion Mgmt
WBS 2.4 Trade Study
Mgmt
WBS 2.4 Trade Study
Mgmt
WBS 2.5 Interfaces
WBS 2.5 Interfaces
WBS 3.1Safety & Mission
Assurance Mgmt
WBS 3.1Safety & Mission
Assurance Mgmt
WBS 3.2System Safety
WBS 3.2System Safety
WBS 3.3Reliability
Engineering
WBS 3.3Reliability
Engineering
WBS 3.4EEE Parts
Engineering
WBS 3.4EEE Parts
Engineering
WBS 3.5Quality
Assurance Engineering
WBS 3.5Quality
Assurance Engineering
WBS 3.6 Materials & ProcessesAssurance
WBS 3.6 Materials & ProcessesAssurance
WBS 3.7Contamina-tion ControlAssurance
WBS 3.7Contamina-tion ControlAssurance
WBS 3.8Software
IV&V
WBS 3.8Software
IV&V
WBS 3.9Mission
OperationsAssurance
WBS 3.9Mission
OperationsAssurance
WBS 4.1Science Mgmt
WBS 4.1Science Mgmt
WBS 4.2Science Team
WBS 4.2Science Team
WBS 4.3 Measure-
ment Validation
WBS 4.3 Measure-
ment Validation
WBS 4.4Climate
Modeling
WBS 4.4Climate
Modeling
WBS 4.5Science
Data Support
WBS 4.5Science
Data Support
WBS 4.6Operational
Support
WBS 4.6Operational
Support
WBS 4.7Instrument Modeling
WBS 4.7Instrument Modeling
WBS 5.1Payload
Mgmt
WBS 5.1Payload
Mgmt
WBS 5.2 PayloadSystem
Engineering
WBS 5.2 PayloadSystem
Engineering
WBS 5.3.1Solar
Spectro-meter
WBS 5.3.1Solar
Spectro-meter
WBS 5.3.2Far IR
Spectro-meter
WBS 5.3.2Far IR
Spectro-meter
WBS 5.3.3GPS
Instrument
WBS 5.3.3GPS
Instrument
WBS 6.1 Spacecraft
Mgmt
WBS 6.1 Spacecraft
Mgmt
WBS 6.2SpacecraftWBS 6.2Spacecraft
WBS 6.2.2Structural
WBS 6.2.2Structural
WBS 6.2.3C&DH
WBS 6.2.3C&DH
WBS 6.2.4Power
WBS 6.2.4Power
WBS 6.2.5Thermal
WBS 6.2.5Thermal
WBS 6.2.6Communications
WBS 6.2.6Communications
WBS 6.2.4.1Battery
WBS 6.2.4.1Battery
WBS 6.2.4.2Solar Arrays
WBS 6.2.4.2Solar Arrays
WBS 6.2.4.3Charging & Distribution
WBS 6.2.4.3Charging & Distribution
WBS 7.1Mission
Operations Mgmt
WBS 7.1Mission
Operations Mgmt
WBS 7.2Spacecraft Operations
WBS 7.2Spacecraft Operations
WBS 7.3Instrument Operations
WBS 7.3Instrument Operations
WBS 7.4Data
Processing
WBS 7.4Data
Processing
WBS 9.1Ground Systems
Mgmt
WBS 9.1Ground Systems
Mgmt
WBS 9.2Ground Stations
WBS 9.2Ground Stations
WBS 9.3Communications
WBS 9.3Communications
WBS 9.4Ops CentersWBS 9.4
Ops Centers
WBS 9.12.1Spacecraft
Commanding
WBS 9.12.1Spacecraft
Commanding
WBS 9.2.2Data Relay
WBS 9.2.2Data Relay
WBS 6.2.8Interfaces
WBS 6.2.8Interfaces
WBS 8.1Launch Mgmt
WBS 8.1Launch Mgmt
WBS 8.2Launch Vehicle
WBS 8.2Launch Vehicle
WBS 8.3 Launch
Services
WBS 8.3 Launch
Services
WBS 8.2.1SE
WBS 8.2.1SE
WBS 8.2.2Interfaces
WBS 8.2.2Interfaces
WBS 6.2.1Spacecraft
SE
WBS 6.2.1Spacecraft
SE
WBS 10.1Payload to Spacecraft Integration
WBS 10.1Payload to Spacecraft Integration
WBS 10.2Spacecraft to Launch Vehicle
Integration
WBS 10.2Spacecraft to Launch Vehicle
Integration
WBS 6.2.7Attitude Control, etc.
WBS 6.2.7Attitude Control, etc.
WBS 6.2.7.1Attitude ControlWBS 6.2.7.1Attitude Control
WBS 6.2.7.2Propulsion
WBS 6.2.7.2Propulsion
WBS 6.2.9 Pyro/
Release
WBS 6.2.9 Pyro/
Release
WBS 2,6 Contamination Control
WBS 2,6 Contamination Control
WBS 2.7 Materials & Processes
WBS 2.7 Materials & Processes
WBS 5.3Payload
WBS 5.3Payload
WBS 5.3.4IR Spectro-
meter
WBS 5.3.4IR Spectro-
meter
11
CLARREO Systems Engineering Chart
Mission Concept Development
•Identifying trades
•Initial analysis (small team)
•Developing Engineering Data Request Matrix
•Developing Engineering Trade Matrix
•Cost AnalysisSub-systems being staffed
•Orbital Mechanics
•Thermal
•Comm & Data
•Optical
•Structural
•Mechanical
•Power
•Avionics
•Electronics
•Software
•S/C Interfaces
•Propulsion
GPS RO
Solar Reflected Spectrometer
Near-IR to Mid-IR Spectrometer
Mid-IR to Far-IR Spectrometer
Requirements
•Instrument requirements
•Science baseline mission focused on inter-calibration
•Science baseline mission focused on benchmarking
•Demonstration mission
•Ground Systems
•Mission Operations
Developing traceability between on-going trade studies and mission parameter requirements
Monitor ICD Development & Control
Launch Vehicle Interface
Spacecraft Bus Interface
Mission Ops Interface
Ground Systems Interface
Software
Requirements Management
•Definition, flow down, tracking
•Requirement mgt tool
•Level 1 Requirements Doc
•Mission Requirements DocConfiguration Management
•CM tool, processes, planSchedule Development
•Project full life cycle
•Detailed phase A planScience Trade Study Mgt
•Tracking current studies
•Identifying gapsTechnical Resource Mgt
•Margins mgtTechnology ReadinessFADSEMPProject PlanMission Acquisition ReportWBSV&V
Project Systems EngineerMichelle Garn
ConsultantJohn Rogers
SE DeliverablesManagementRick Walker
Flight SystemsIntegrationCraig Jones
Mission Design &Analysis
Paul Speth
Operational ConceptsSteve Hall
Payload InterfaceManagement
Dave Johnson
12
Defining Engineering Space: Mission Trades
• Number of satellites and orbit selection
– Benchmark and/or inter-calibration
– Diurnal cycle and/or orbital overlap for inter-calibration
• Instrument redundancy
• Spacecraft pointing versus nadir only
• Spectral range and resolution
• Spatial and temporal sampling requirements
• Footprint size
• GPS requirements
• Validation approach (i.e., aircraft, other satellites, balloons, redundant instruments)
• Level of international partnering
• Scope of mission (i.e., demonstration versus operational mission)
13
Mission Trade Space Considerations
Each variation can be used to
Attitude Control System
Structure PropulsionPower
SubsystemThermal
SubsystemTelemetryTracking &
Control
CommandData
Handling
Attitude Mode
Stabilization Method
Component Sizing
CPU Throughput
Data storage
Instrument interfaces
TLM/CMD Frequency
TLM/CMD Ground Support
Modulation/ Encoding
Passive vs. Active
Payload Thermal Interfaces
Thermal Biasing
Array structure
Array articulation
Cell and Battery Sizing
Payload location / interfaces
Boom complexity
Meet thermal, viewing, and stiffness requirement
Fuel system config
Fuel and Engine trades
Tank sizing for max prop load
Benchmark, Inter-calibrationOr Hybrid
Spacecraft Instrument Suite and Redundancy
Pointing requirement responsibility
Mission Lifetime
Spacecraft Subsystem Redundancy
On-orbit operation & duty cycle
Diurnal Sampling or Orbital Overlap
Number of spacecraftSpacecraft Operations & Mission Implementation
Each variation of the top-level science implementation trades will flow into concurrent subsystem designs to
characterize the overall trade space.
14
Define Engineering Space• Parallel Engineering Path
– Define engineering space while science studies are underway• Utilize System Analysis Tools and Integrated Design Tools to efficiently study multiple mission concepts
– Engineering in parallel – develop concept and key trades to get cost by March 2009
– Expect Level 1 Requirements by April 2009 – narrow the trade space
– Conduct traditional integrated design sessions to refine mission until MCR
• Generate cost and technical assessment of mission concepts to support results of science trade results expected in Spring 2009
– Balance the equation• Add cost, risk, and feasibility to discussions of science objectives• Sampling discussion: cost of additional spacecraft and launch, launch vehicle options• Solar and Infrared on same spacecraft: TRL assessment, mass, launch vehicle, cost• Field of View: mass and cost impact of 13Km FOV vs. 100Km FOV, • Crosstrack scanning: mass, power, cost, performance of scanner• Instrument Redundancy: cost of additional instruments
– Baseline a mission concept with respect to NASA Standards and Expectations• Certified Launch Vehicles• Parametric and Grassroots cost estimation
– Develop descope options to baseline concept
• Close cooperation with Earth Science Systematic Mission Program Office– Leverage lessons learned from SMAP and ICESAT-II
Healthy tension
16
Integrated Systems Engineering Team
• Complex mission
– Climate is complex
– Multiple instruments: solar, infrared, far-infrared and GPS
– Not a process mission
– Strong tie to standards and metrology
• Realize Expertise in Climate Community
• Consider Options that Reduce Mission Risk
– Build a diverse and deep systems engineering team that encompasses instrumentation, on-ground calibration, on-orbit calibration, and level 1 processing
– With consideration that some of the instruments and key subsystems will be selected through competitive process
17
What We Need from Science Team• What Engineering Team needs from Science team
– Need rationale for key mission drivers: • Orbit determination – which orbit and how many?
• Instrumentation: Solar, infrared and GPS on same spacecraft?
• Field of view: zonal, regional, or global; facilitate attribution; facilitate validation; facilitate cross-calibration and benchmark
• Inter-calibration concept, radiance benchmark concept, or both?
• Crosstrack: nadir view only sufficient?
• Spectral resolution: not as much of a driver at this stage (assuming >0.5 cm -1)
• Detector noise performance: identify technology drivers & cyrocooler impact
– Level 1 Science requirements– Incorporate: “Better is the evil of good enough” philosophy
• Aiming for 80% solution
– Ability to form to a consensus• Willingness to compromise
• Recognition that continued debate will likely delay mission
• Do we have a team that is interested in the mission, even at the cost of their particular interest?
• Will issues be discussed with rationale tied to the mission science goals?
– Studies with a focused approach• Answer a question that drives mission parameter