1. 2 space universal modular architecture (sumo) setting the environment for industry-consensus...
Post on 29-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2
Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)
Setting the Environment for Industry-Consensus Standards
September 2013
Bernie CollinsODNI/AT&F
3
SUMO Agenda
Introduction
Outreach and Support: Government
Outreach and Support: Industry
Cost Savings and Other Benefits
Transition Plan
4
Space Universal MOdular Architecture (SUMO)
SUMO Certified Components
Space Universal MOdular architecture
SUMO
Plug & Play
Standards Process
Collaboration
ODNI
NRO
Industry
AFRL
SMC
NASA
Transition Plan
Goal: Reduce the cost of satellites and help the US industry be more responsive in a growing international space market
What: Interoperability of satellite components through universalized environments and standardized data and electrical interfaces
How: Leverage existing & evolving standards to help US industry coalesce around industry consensus standards (which could become international)
US Space Industrial Base• More Competitive
Internationally• Larger Addressable Market• Less Time to Market/Orbit• Increased Innovation
US Government Buyer• Reduced Acquisition Costs• Enhanced Capabilities
5
Modular Bus with Open Interfaces
Component Interfaces Defined by the Application
Component Interfaces Defined by Industry Consensus
Supplier A
Supplier B
Prime X
Prime Y
Supplier CPrime Z
Catalog, Common, or Custom Bus
Supplier A
Supplier B
Prime X
Prime Y
Supplier C Prime Z
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
6
Software Layering Diagram
SUMO defines the interfaces through
industryconsensus
7
Tenets for Success
• Leverage Existing Standards and Think Global
• Space Industry Consensus
• Avoid Commoditization – Protect Intellectual Property
• Natural Break-In Points for Gradual Introduction– Avoid disrupting current programs
8
Industry:Platform
CommonalityFramework
Industry:SPA Variants
SUMO Evolutionary Path
SMC:MONA and SNAP
forHosted payload
interfaces
ORS:MSV
Risk Reduction Opportunities
$50MNASA:
Common Instrument
Interface
AFRL:MONARCH
(SPA)$130M
DARPA:F6
ExperimentOpportunities
$300M
NASA:Core Flight Executive
$12M,20 Missions
Industry:Time-Triggered
GigabitEthernet
Industry:Integrated Modular
Architecture
NASA:SpaceAge Bus
$4M, 13 Missions
Leverage past and present government and industry investments to progress from proprietary, custom architectures to modular, open network architectures
Industry:Universal
QualificationEnvironments
Industry:IRAD
>$100M
AFRL:NGSIS
Collaboration Fora:
EXISTING:
- Integrated Transition Team- SUMO Special Interest
Group*- CCSDS Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services
- One-on-one technical interchanges
DEFINED:- Letter of Intent- Space Industrial Base
Council Working Group- DPA Title III Presidential
Determination
DEVELOPING:- Cooperative R&D
Agreements- Consortium for Space
Industry Standards
*http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uspacesig
On-going Initiatives Have Many Similarities
9
Space Avionics Open Interface Architecture (SAVOIR)*
SAVOIR: an undertaking led by space European Agencies and Industries aiming at promoting Space Avionics based on Open Interfaces
• In its first phase, SAVOIR has federated the space avionics community around the concept of reference architectures, standard interfaces, and generic specifications
•SAVOIR second phase includes the refinement of reference architectures, the elaboration of a product portfolio, and the production of two sets of generic specifications
•The maturity and completeness of the SAVOIR concept will be assessed by building lab demonstrators integrating a consistent set of items
*From ESA Website (http://www.congrex.nl/11c22/)
10
Business Case from Cost Analysis• Aerospace Corp modeled US Satellite
Market to quantify savings on cost of bus– Model included capture rate, technology
insertion, obsolescence, integration complexity, organizational complexity, etc.
– Model reviewed twice by ODNI CAIG• Findings:
– Over 17 years and 442 satellites• Savings was $18.8B (29%)• Payback Period was 9 Years
– Commercial space has the greatest savings due to high volume (learning)
– Government savings reduced by low volume (learning) and organizational complexity
• Not all SUMO benefits were monetized– Net present value through ease of
reconfigurability should increase
LEO 3-4, GEO 1-2 Government & Commercial Business Case (100% Capture)
Potential Total Cost Savings is 29%
Cost Savings by Sponsor ($M)Key Assumptions:• 100% Capture Business Case (Bus only)• Government (3 organizations) + commercial satellites (1
organization)• Government develops satellte bus separately from
commercial satellte bus• LEO 3, LEO 4, GEO 1 and GEO 2 only• 442 satellites over 17 years• Satellite build = 5 to 7 yearsResults:• Business Case Closes • Payback Period= 9 Years(FY22)• Total Cost Savings = $18.8B• Cumulative Costs Savings = 29%
Component Style SV Class (Component Qty per SV) 1 Year 20 Years
LEO1 LEO2 LEO3 LEO4 GEO1 GEO2 Total Total
Torque Rods
Style A 3 17 330Style B 3 4 72Style C 3 34 684Style D 3 7 138
Reaction Wheel/CMGs
Style A 3 17 330Style B 3 4 49 984Style C 4 9 184Style D 4 59 1184Style E 4 27 544
Sun SensorsStyle A 6 33 660Style B 6 6 6 6 6 219 4380
MagnetometersStyle A 1 6 110Style B 1 2 2 29 572
Star TrackersStyle A 1 6 120Style B 1 2 2 2 2 72 1436
IMUsStyle A 1 6 110Style B 1 2 2 2 2 72 1436
GPS ReceiversStyle A 1 6 110Style B 1 2 2 29 572
Transponders Style A 1 1 2 2 2 2 77 1546
Integrated CDH Style A 4 5 6 8 8 8 288 5752
Processor Boards Style A 4 5 6 8 8 8 288 5752Solar Cells Style A 752 2372 2959 11090 9274 19895 338763 6775264Batt ery Cell Style A 1 2 2 13 24 28 606 12124Main Engine Style A 1 1 22 432Maneuver Thrusters Style A 6 6 130 2592RCS Thrusters Style A 4 4 4 8 12 12 350 7000
Avgerage Satellite Quantity Per Year 5.5 1.2 11.4 2.3 14.8 6.8
11
…a word about the Cost Model• Modeled full plug and play
– Industry has made clear they are not ready for full plug and play; SUMO cost analysis will differ but this model gives a first approximation of savings
• Modeled 5 to 7 years satellite bus acquisition– Industry feedback indicates 2 to 3 years is reasonable…would accelerate
crossover point• Modeled the costs of two full satellites
– New approach models delta costs on top of funded project…reduces upfront NRE• NRO not modeled to gain learning from commercial industry
– Commercial industry buying 20 satellites per year• Modeled increased organizational conflict as more participants engaged and
provided input– Reduced savings by 30%; realistic for the first decade but reasonable to expect
conflicts to be resolved over time (based on MilSTD-1553 experience)
An Average of 29% Savings on the Cost of a Bus is Significant
12
Potential Advantages Beyond Cost Savings• Mission Assurance• Increased Cost Sharing with Standard Interfaces for
Hosted Payload• Multi-mission Flexibility; Mission Reconfigurability• Reduced Build Schedule• Plug-n-play Enabled Innovation and Technology Insertion• Enhanced Monitoring and Anomaly Identification and
Resolution• Higher Data Rate Potential for New Capabilities and
Additional Revenue Stream
Industries Which Standardize Interfaces Often see Growth and Improved Performance
13
• Deputy Administrator, Ch Eng, Ch Tech, GSFC Administrator are very supportive. Representative to CCSDS.
• Iterating on SUMO Transition Plan, developed SpaceAGE Bus and Core Flight Executive
Goal: understand policy & budget drivers, and industrial base policy issues.Government Buyers & Stakeholders: Focus on affordability, responsiveness and ability to maintain programs of record during budget driven era.
NASA
Policy
DoD
Government Outreach and Support
IC
• AT&L is very supportive. Helping SUMO propose for Title-III funds.• AFSPC/CV is a “big fan of interface standards”.• SMC/XR is developing industry-driven MONA (a part of SUMO);
iterating SUMO transition plan. AFRL created SPA.• SMC also asked prime to investigate “universal” components
• PDDNI and ADNI/AT&F full support. Released CIG language.• NRO is looking for components which could be
“universalized”; conducted modular bus study.
• OSTP supporting SUMO. • NSC and OMB are very supportive.• DoC (including ITA and NIST) are engaged.
14
Collaboration with NASA, SMC, & NROUNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
How the Space Community Can Reap
the Benefits of Modular Open Network Architecture (MONA)
Dr. Roberta Ewart (SMC/XR)
8 April 2013
A Perspective from NASA on Standardization and Commonality
28SUMO Workshop Briefing
Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.govGlenn.P.Rakow@NASA.gov
Seeking strategies to influence industry to provide modular, open networked space capabilities
Developing approaches to overcome key challenges
Utilize innovative acq approaches and small, strategic investments
Business case must be acceptable to industry
Step-in/step-out influence
Goal of reducing cost on spacecraft w/o negatively impacting science return, system reliability, operations
Adopting an approach to leverage standards and create commonality in software, hardware, interfaces and tools
Approach is vendor agnostic, allows for evolution and technology insertion
A modular bus with standard, open interfaces will drive down NRE
A Unified Mindset with Collaborative Interaction Growing Across the Government
15
- Potential improvement on Return on Investment and Net Present Value- Also support buying services versus systems; Support hosted payloads- Encourage commercial best practices
Interaction through Request for Information (RFI) on FedBizOps, several SIA & AIA sponsored workshops, conferences, site visits, telecoms and questionnaires
Satellite Operators: Support
- Concerned about Reduced Profit; Suggested FFP acquisitions- Prefer to promote proprietary solutions; will comply if gov’t requires
SUMO- Need government funding to compensate for long term return (~ 9
years)- Very supportive of Common Qual Environment; ready to engage- Also support Stable requirements; Risk tolerance
Industry Outreach and Support
Primes & Integrators: Conditionally Support
Component Manufacturers: Strongly Support
- Stabilize the industrial base; lower NRE; improve competitiveness- Common processes (testing) for hardware will expand margins- Avoid commoditization; prefer implementation on new products- Interface standards reduce barriers to market entry
- Somewhat biased; confirmed that SUMO is technically feasible and can reduce costs and assembly times
Satellite Integration Subs: Strongly Support
- Buy services versus systems; learn from commercial buyers
- More dialogue with industry
End to End (E2E) Service Providers: Ambivalent
Industry unanimously noted that government commitment and funding is needed.
16
Why Many in Industry Support SUMO*•Bus design with interoperable components allow design emphasis on payload technologies•Suppliers can increase their production rates, margins and performance•Common qualification environments diminishes inventory risk, and improves quality•Increased use of fixed priced contracts for bus allows primes more latitude for controlling margins•Simplifies bus integration which allows innovation, reduces schedules and increases Net Present Value•Enhances global responsiveness through participation in international standards processes•Addresses cyber security risk•Public/private partnerships partially mitigate corporate upfront capital risk•Realistic, logical transition plan uses natural break-in points for gradual introduction•Interfaces will be carefully standardized to protect intellectual property and promote innovation•Step-in/step-out approach encourages industry-consensus standards and product differentiation
16
A modular, open architecture such as SUMO presents a Space Industry Dilemma
*Based on interviews and written responses
17
Notional SUMO Transition Plan • The Transition Plan is “notional” because it was created by a small,
experienced team; not yet by the executing agencies– Comprised of former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Deputy
Under Secretary for Space, Director of Space Transportation (NASA/HQ), Director of SIGINT Acquisition (NRO), VP of Space Systems, NASA Programs (Industry)
• Proposes Executive Coordination by Space Industrial Base Council– Comprised of DoD(AT&L), DNI/AT&F, USAF, NASA, NRO, MDA, NOAA
• Phased to achieve early gains with regionalized qualification environment while defining Architecture of Standards for interfaces
• Establishes role for certification agent and certification process• Progresses from interface definition to interface development to
bench test to demo flight to program of record• Plan tied to FYDP budget cycle; budget profiles aligned to sources
– Proposed sources include DPA Title III, Industry, and Executing Agents
18
Notional SUMO Transition Plan
B
B
2a/b - SUMO AoS & EDS Dev CCSDS (Qtrly)
2c - Certification Program• Define Process & Agent• Execute Certification
3 - Play Side of SUMO• Proto-Flight• Programs of Record (POR) S
S
INT’L
S
FY15 Bgt CycleFY16 Bgt Cycle
FY17 Bgt CycleFY18 Bgt Cycle
FY19 Bgt CycleFY20 Bgt Cycle
FY21 Bgt CycleFY22 Bgt Cycle
K/O
LOIs SIGNED
MoAsSIGNED
2d - Plug Side of SUMO• Demonstration Prgms (Bench)
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
DRFT AGNT FNL
1 - Regional Components
1 - Universal Components…D
…
D
D D
B D D…
…D D
ACQ…D D
SUMO-Next DRFT PLAN
FINAL PLAN
EXECUTION
FY Budget Cycle Windows
Universalization/CQE
K/OD D D
US SUMO & EDS R2
D
1st 5th 12th B = Submit BgtS = Start WorkD = Deliver
LEGEND
… = Multiple Deliveries
SUMO Objective
Starting
Initial
Partial
Full
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
FY20 FY21 FY22FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19CY19 CY20 CY21 CY22CY13 CY14 CY15 CY16 CY17 CY18
Exec Coord (SIBC)• Agency LOIs/MoAs• Agency Budget Coord (annual)
19
Way-Forward Highlights• Develop a Presidential Determination for Title III Funding• Getting agency engagement on near-term tasks including:
– Coordinating Letter Of Intent and developing a Memorandum of Agreement– Supporting Space Industrial Base Council (SIBC) Integrated Transition Team and
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) forums with assigned personnel
– Expanding US SUMO Special Interest Group and Industry Consensus Fora• Coordinate with Agencies for Transition plan to include fiscal programming• Define and develop Regionalization/Universalization Common Qual
Environment initiatives• Gain AIAA (and CCSDS) engagement on leading three aspects of SUMO AoS
development– Electronic Data Sheets, Physical Electrical Interfaces, Data (SW Stack)
• Refine and Validate Budget analysis
Advance Stakeholders from “Interested” to “Committed by Action”
20
BACK UPS
21
EU Standardized External Power Supply
• In 2009 several government, consumer and industry initiatives resulted in the European Union's specification of a common External Power Supply (EPS) for use with data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU.– The "external power supply" is the AC power adapter that converts household AC electricity
voltages to the much lower DC voltages needed to charge a mobile phone's internal battery.– Although compliance is voluntary, a majority of the world's largest mobile phone
manufacturers have agreed to make their applicable mobile phones compatible with the EU's common External Power Supply.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_External_Power_Supply
22
The Market Leader’s Dilemma: Diminish an Existing Capability to Develop a New Capability?
Capability
Time
Adapted From: Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen
Period of Early Development
Period of Compounded Innovation
Period of Fine-tuning
Modular Bus is here
Custom Bus is here
top related