Schaible.dawn
-
Upload
nasapmc -
Category
Technology
-
view
13.081 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Schaible.dawn
Engineering Excellence 1
Broad-Based TeamsCase Study #2 – Max Launch Abort System
Project Management Challenge 2009Daytona Beach, Florida
February 24-25, 2009
Dawn M. SchaibleNASA Engineering and Safety Center
Engineering Excellence 2
NESC Background
Engineering Excellence 3
• In 2003, the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was formed as a response to a Columbia Accident Investigation Board observation
• The NESC mission is to provide the Agency’s Programs and Projects with rigorous independent technical perspectives on their most critical technical issues
Five years later – The NESC remains independent:
• Centrally managed and funded through the Office of Chief Engineer• Small staff of senior leaders and technical experts to lead broad-based engineering
teams in “tiger team” fashion• Unaffiliated with and unbiased by any specific NASA Program or Center• Has an independent engineering chain of command to assure an avenue for
consideration of all points of view• Facilitating hands-on design and development experience
NESC Overview
Engineering Excellence 4
NESC emphasis is to create broad-based teams to enable networks that discourage silos
– Recruit team membership from a broad community
– Increase inter-Center knowledge and information flow
– Facilitate inter-Center collaboration
– Encourage inter-Center relationships and communities of practice
NESC Background
Engineering Excellence 5
MLAS Project Overview
Engineering Excellence 6
Original Action
• NASA’s former Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, Scott Horowitz, asked the NESC to develop an alternate design as risk mitigation for the Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) concept. The alternate concept will be demonstrated by a pad abort test
– The highest risk (at that time) for the Orion LAS design was the Attitude Control Motor (ACM)
– Team is focused on LAS concepts that eliminate or mitigate the need for complex controls
• “Max” LAS (MLAS) named in honor of Maxime Faget, the original designer of the Project Mercury capsule and holder of the patent for the “Aerial Capsule Emergency Separation Device” (escape tower)
Engineering Excellence 7
MLAS Task, Approach, and Success Criteria
• Task: – Develop an alternate LAS design as risk mitigation for the
Orion LAS. Demonstrate the alternate concept with a pad abort flight test
• Approach: – Strive to identify the simplest design that will satisfy launch
abort requirements while maximizing nominal ascent performance
– Implement flight test by using off-the-shelf parts wherever possible to minimize cost and shorten schedule
• Success Criteria: – Obtain sufficient flight test data to assess performance,
validate models/tools, and support an MLAS Objective System design
Engineering Excellence 8
MLAS Conceptual Design
Flight TestVehicle
Candidate MLAS Objective System
ReplaceWith
Current Orion ALAS
MLAS Flight TestVehicle Design
Engineering Excellence 9
MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Configuration
• Flight Test Vehicle (FTV) configuration has evolved as the design has matured, driven by rapid prototype/off-the-shelf hardware approach
• Current MLAS configuration has four center-clustered MK-70 motors aft-mounted in a separable boost skirt
– Early plan to fly forward-mounted motors would have required development of a manifold to accommodate thrust dispersions
– Manifold development posed a high project risk– Aft-mounted MK-70 motors addressed the thrust dispersion problem
without the manifold
• Objective system flight stability hardware simulated with planarfins attached to a separable coast skirt
• FTV flight will demonstrate stable coast configuration, drogue-assisted turnaround, Crew Module (CM)-fairing separation, and alternate CM parachute recovery
Engineering Excellence 10
Coast Skirt
Boost Skirt
Modified Sears-Haack FairingMotor Simulators
Separation Joints
Internally-Mounted Motors
Turnaround Drogues
Drag Plates
MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Configuration
Engineering Excellence 11
Forward Fairing
CM Simulator
Coast Skirt
Boost Skirt
Motor Cage
Frangible Joints
MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Expanded View
Engineering Excellence 12
Candidate Objective System – FTV Relationship
Forward Fairing Shape& Motor Protuberances
Conventional FinsSized to Match GridFin Stability Increment toAchieve Early Passive FlightDemonstration
Boost Motors Moved Aftto Eliminate Motor ManifoldRisk to Flight Test
FlightTestVehicle
Booster
Engineering Excellence 13
MLAS Concept of Operations
CM Delivery to Release Point Conditions
Stable Coast Separate Stabilization DevicesAnd Begin Reorientation
ReorientationAnd Stabilization
Pad Abort Initiation Powered Ascent
Stabilizing Grid Fin Deployment
Boost SkirtSeparation
Separate Fins
MLAS Flight Test Objectives
Coast SkirtSeparation
Candidate Objective System
Flight Test Vehicle
Flight Test Data
Design Trade Space
Engineering Excellence 14
CM Parachute Demonstration Concept of Ops
FTV reorientation via drogue parachutes in Forward Fairing
CM drogue parachute deployment
CM main parachute
deployment
CM separation from MLAS Forward Fairing
CM Forward Bay Cover release to extract main
parachutes
Engineering Excellence 15
MLAS Benefits to Constellation Program
• Demonstration of pad abort with passive controls
– First demonstration of a passively-stabilized LAS on a vehicle in this size and weight class
• Collection of full-scale aeroacoustic environment data
– First test to acquire full-scale aeroacoustic environment data on a faired capsule concept
• Demonstration of CM fairing/separation
– First test to demonstrate full scale fairing/CM separation and measure associated aerodynamic and orientation data
• Demonstration of CM main parachute deployment using Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster recovery-based system
Engineering Excellence 16
MLAS Benefits to Agency
• Demonstration of rapid large-scale design and concurrent hardware procurement
• Opportunity to anchor aerodynamic analysis to flight data for a design strongly influenced by analytical models and engineering assumptions
• Accumulation of flight data for a unique length-to-diameter vehicle
• Unique opportunity for hands-on training afforded the next generation of Agency engineers
Resident Engineer Omar Torres testing separation dynamics at University of Washington
Transonic Wind Tunnel Testing at Calspan
Engineering Excellence 17
MLAS Team Structure
Engineering Excellence 18
SpaceFibreG. Rakow
CM ParachutesC Shreves
MLASProject Management
Project Manager – R RoeDeputy PM – T Wilson
Chief Engineer – M Gilbert
Project Planning and Control
L Leybold
Mentorsand
Resident Engineers
S&MAG. Kelm
SE&ID Schaible
J Berry - MSE
AerodynamicsD Schuster
PropulsionC Schafer
Structures and MechanismsM Kirsch / T Palm
SoftwareM Aguilar
Avionicsand Instrumentation
M Davis
LandingD Yuchnovicz
Ground OpsB Underwood / S Minute
B Hall – Vehicle MgrNESC Technology Demonstrators
Flight MechanicsN Dennehy
Loads and DynamicsC Larsen / K Elliott
MLAS Team Structure
Engineering Excellence 19
MLAS Team Composition
• Extended MLAS team comprised of 150 members, including engineers, analysts, mentors, and resident engineers from across the Agency and industry
Engineering Excellence 20
Residents and Mentors
Gary Dittemore (JSC) T.K. MattinglyGeminesse Dorsey (JSC) Jerry McCullough Joe Grady (GRC) Tom ModlinSamantha Manning (KSC) Dave ShemwellSamuel Miller (LaRC) Milt SilveiraTheodore Muench (GSFC) Bob WestTerrian Nowden (GRC)Sarah Quach (KSC)Jerry Sterling (GSFC)Omar Torres (LaRC)
Residents Mentors
Engineering Excellence 21
MLAS Resident Engineer Opportunity
• Unique opportunity for direct, on-going interaction between MLAS residents, NASA Technical Fellows, and Apollo-era veterans
• Limited scope and short duration of the MLAS project provides rare systems engineering experience
• “Off-line” nature of the project provides an opportunity to try-and-fail
Resident engineers
assisting in composite fin
testing
Resident engineers Sam Miller and Gary Dittemore performing camera vibration testing
Engineering Excellence 22
MLAS Project Management/Systems Engineering Approach
Engineering Excellence 23
MLAS Project Management Approach
• Focus on over-arching objectives– Meeting over-arching objectives defines MLAS Project success
– Manage critical path
– Additional requirements to buy themselves in
• MLAS Team requirements and design baseline are controlled by team’s MLAS Configuration Control Board (CCB)
• Project Manager – Chair
• Deputy Project Manager
• Chief Engineer
• Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Lead
• Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Lead
• Subteam Leads
• Periodic co-locations and virtual integrated design sessions
• Providing design, development, and test training opportunity through Resident Engineer Program
Engineering Excellence 24
MLAS Rapid Prototype Philosophy
• Limited flight test objectives
• Conservative loads and dynamic environments
• Proto-flight structural margins
• Low cost, minimum lead time materials and processes - Not mass driven
• Statically stable during boost and coast
• Ballast vehicle and adjust launch stool angle to meet trajectory constraints
• Design schedule prioritized by production and assembly sequence
• Maximum use of proven, off-the-shelf hardware
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gulfport
Engineering Excellence 25
MLAS Systems Engineering Process
• Mission Systems Engineer identified to lead design and trade study activities• S&MA representatives included as part of core SE&I team• FTV configuration designed using rapid prototype philosophy• Utilize Products Needs List to track data deliverables between teams• Defining documents:
– Requirements, Interface Control Documents, Design Data Book, Flight Test Plan, Ground Operations Plan
– Minimized formal documentation and eliminated boilerplate information as much as practical
• Streamlined configuration control process – Utilize standing meeting for MLAS CCB for design changes and reviews
• Tailored independent review process – Goal is a thorough, independent review with a variety of perspectives,
experiences, and processes considered
• Safety process employs hazard analysis and risk management processes without detailed failure mode and effects analysis
Engineering Excellence 26
MLAS Review Process
• MLAS tailored independent review process
– Not the formalized Preliminary/Critical Design Review process
– Conducting a series of Independent Technical Reviews (ITR)
• ITR1 conducted in November 2007- Gain confidence to procure long-lead
materials and tooling• ITR2 conducted in April 2008
- Conducted sub team peer reviews in preparation
- Gain confidence to fabricate flight hardware and ground support equipment
• ITR3 planned for March 2009- Gain confidence to conduct the pad
abort flight test ITR 2 at LaRC in April 2008
Engineering Excellence 27
Collaboration Approach
Engineering Excellence 28
Collaboration Approach
• Utilizing PDMLink in Windchill for configuration management
• Virtual team environment – Using WebEx and Windchill
– Monthly co-location of team
– Establish multi-disciplinary teams to address integrated issues
– Virtual integrated design sessions
– Utilize instant messaging and desktop sharing
Engineering Excellence 29
General Co-Location Goals
• Goals of co-locating:– Common understanding of project goals and success criteria– Facilitate rapid decision making– Reinforce project schedule, critical path, and upcoming
milestones– Align expectations for upcoming deliverables– Build teamwork
Team co-locations at LaRC
Engineering Excellence 30
Co-Location Approach
• Co-location sessions are organized working sessions, not a formal meeting/design review
• Begin each co-location with a kick-off briefing– Reinforce project success criteria and exit criteria
• Begin each day with a 30 minute kick-off meeting at 8:30– Meeting has a definite end
– Assign actions for small groups to work, with achievable deliverables
– Identify hot topics for the day
• Utilize white board to schedule “hot topics” – a list of meetings, times, participants, and objectives
• Meetings, priorities, and hot topics facilitated by SE&I
• All team members, including mentor and resident teams, expected to attend each co-location if possible
Engineering Excellence 31
Between Co-Locations
• Regular Team Tag-ups – Team leads or representatives
expected to participate
– Communicate major results, issues, and product needs
– Frequency of meetings adjusted during each stage of project
– Splinter meetings scheduled as needed
– Agendas for tag-up meetings are projected a week ahead of time and distributed daily
– Use forum for MLAS CCBs as needed
• Conduct periodic schedule reviews and action status reviews• Communication, communication, communication
Team Tag-up at Wallops Flight Facility
Engineering Excellence 32
Project Status
Engineering Excellence 33
Project Status
Tooling plug foam machining
Crew Module simulator
Engineering Excellence 34
Project Status
Forward Bay Cover outfitting with main parachutes (left) and drogue parachutes (right)
Engineering Excellence 35
Project Status
Tooling plug foam machiningCM simulator fabrication complete and outfitting underwayBoost skirt and coast skirt assembly,Forward fairing quarter panels
Engineering Excellence 36
Project Status
Tooling plug foam machiningCM simulator fabrication complete and outfitting underwayForward fairing quarter panel
Engineering Excellence 37
Project Status
Crew Module avionics buildup
Engineering Excellence 38
Project Status
CM avionics buildup complete and integrated test underwayComposite fins
Engineering Excellence 39
Upcoming Milestones
• Vehicle integration and test complete – early March 2009• Independent Technical Review #3 – early March 2009• Vehicle transfer to pad complete – Mid-March 2009• Target flight test date – March 27, 2009
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gulfport