b sherwood dmc_cleese
Post on 28-May-2015
14.443 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
Brent Sherwood1, Manager
Daniel J. McCleese1, Director
NASA PM Challenge
February, 2012
1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
© 2012 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.
JPL Innovation Foundry
2
Executive Summary
• NASA supports the community of mission principal investigators by helping them ideate, mature, and propose concepts for new missions. As NASA’s FFRDC, JPL is a primary resource for providing this service.
• The environmental context for the formulation lifecycle evolves continuously. Contemporary trends include: more competitors; more-complex mission ideas; scarcer formulation resources; and higher standards for technical evaluation.
• Derived requirements for formulation support include: stable, clear, reliable methods tailored for each stage of the formulation lifecycle; on-demand access to standout technical and programmatic subject-matter experts; optimized, outfitted facilities; smart access to learning embodied in a vast oeuvre of prior formulation work; hands-on method coaching.
• JPL has retooled its provision of integrated formulation lifecycle support to PIs, teams, and program offices in response to this need. This mission formulation enterprise is the JPL Innovation Foundry.
JPL Innovation Foundry
3
Clear trends are changing the world of competed NASA missions
• More competitors– Increasing population of PIs with requisite credentials– Balance tilting toward PI-led missions vs. flagships
• More-complex mission ideas– Earth-system science; exoplanet observation; planet interiors;
surface interaction, mobility, and return; outer solar system
• Scarcer formulation resources– Topline-constrained new-start opportunities – Phase A/B funding inadequate to bound risk
• Toughening standard of technical evaluation– Ratcheting expectation for PDR-level validation– Increasing risk aversion because of the recognition that
formulation casts the die
JPL Innovation Foundry
4
SMD PI-led Mission Community Faces a Ratcheting Challenge
Simultaneous, competitive formulation…
…of a large number
…of deeply engineered concepts
…for ambitious science objectives
…achieved using only well-understood systems
…formulated on a strict diet
JPL Innovation Foundry
5
What Every PI Needs
• Darwinian evolution of a seed idea
– Maturation into a toughened concept baseline
– That can win, fly, and deliver
• Accurate forecasting despite incomplete data
– Of the eventual state of truth regarding cost and risk
– Of how NASA will model that state of truth when it
evaluates the concept
JPL Innovation Foundry
6
What Every PI Expects
• Above all, to win
• Respect for the integrity of the scientific vision– Aligned pursuit of the best way to implement it– Proprietary protection
• Dedicated campaign team– Undistracted and undiluted– Never feeling the presence of parallel campaigns
• The best help NASA can muster– No stone unturned– Deepest experts applied as needed– Tangible, relevant lessons learned from NASA’s prior concepts,
proposals, and feedback
• Full immersion in decision-making ecology– Selective control over concept and proposal development – No surprises
JPL Innovation Foundry
7
Derived Requirements for a Supportive Mission Formulation Process
• Method– Stable, reliable, clear, understood, exercised– Tailored for each stage of the formulation lifecycle
• SME access– Standout subject-matter experts (technical and programmatic)– On-demand when (but only when) needed
• Facilities– Optimized for pace and interactions of formulation
• Smart access to prior art– Thousands of engineered concepts, hundreds of vetted
proposals, tens of PI-led missions already “in the can”
• Hands-on coaching of the formulation craft
JPL Innovation Foundry
8
MEETING THE CHALLENGEJPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
9
Foundry Infrastructure Elements
• Concept Maturity Level scale
• Pre-Project Principles & Practices
• Campaign template tailoring
• Proposal Power Tools
• Skill cadre via matrix organization (technical, programmatic, and method)
• Concept innovation and maturation teams (A-Team, Team X)
• Left Field (ideation)
• Design Center (concurrent engineering)
• Proposal Center (secure war rooms)
• Information management
• Knowledge management
• Technical facilitation
Method
SME access
Facilities
Access to prior art
Hands-on coaching
JPL Innovation Foundry
10
Every mission starts with a spark
Mission Architecture
Technology Engineering
Science
A mission concept
An invention
A question
JPL Innovation Foundry
11
Titan Orbit
…then the concept is developed
Trades Comments
Launch vehicle Atlas V Delta IV-Heavy Ares V Ares V considered acceptable only for sample return concepts launched post 2020.
Cruise propulsion SEP + GAs Chemical + GAs Propulsive only Good performance from Chemical+Gravity Assists (GAs). SEP+GAs warrants further consideration, but new optimized trajectory search is needed.
Capture into Saturn system Titan aerocapture (aerogravity assist)
Propulsive capture Aerogravity assist saves mass and also saves at least several months in pumpdown .
Pump-down mission design Enceladus/Titan GAs only
Multiple moon GAs only
Multiple moon propulsively-leveraged GAs
REP+GAs Other options found to be too high delta-V or flight time.
RPS type MMRTG ARPS (advanced Stirling)
ARPS specific power higher, efficiency much higher (less Pu needed). Guidelines allowed ARPS as acceptable and available option for flagship studies.
Orbiter implementation Enceladus Orbiter Low-Energy Enceladus Multiple-Flyby (Saturn Orbiter)
High-Energy Enceladus Multiple-Flyby (Saturn Orbiter)
Lander/Probe implementation Fly-Through Probes and Impactors
Rough Landers Soft Landers Orbi-Landers Priority placed on having in-situ measurements from surface.
Number of landers None One Three (regional distribution)
Five (larger-scale distribution and/or redundancy)
Lander lifetime/duration Short-lived (~2 weeks on primary battery or fuel cell)
Long-lived (~1 year on RPS)
Lander mobility type Stationary Locally mobile (~10 km)
Regionally mobile (~100 km)
Globally mobile Considered propulsive "hopper" type concepts for soft landers.
Legend:
Acceptable and evaluated in this studyAcceptable but not evaluated in this studyUnacceptable
Alternatives and Selections
Interior Structure
(Gravity Field)
Magnetic Field
Energetic Particles
Lg. Circ.Sm. Conv.
Vertical Structure
Surface Structure
Surface Composition
Interior Structure
(Gravity Field)
Uranus Satellites
Atmosphere
Polar Orbiter
Fly-By
Atm. Probe
Free-Flying Instruments
Lander
Equatorial Orbiter
Release of Internal Heat
Interior Structure
(Gravity Field)
Magnetic Field
Energetic Particles
Lg. Circ.Sm. Conv.
Vertical Structure
Surface Structure
Surface Composition
Interior Structure
(Gravity Field)
Uranus Satellites
Atmosphere
Polar Orbiter
Fly-By
Atm. Probe
Free-Flying Instruments
Lander
Equatorial Orbiter
Release of Internal Heat
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G Option H Option I
$FY
06M
TMC
Mass Comparison Summary - Launch Mass and Sub-Elements
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
A B C D E F G H I
Mas
s (k
g)
Lander(s)
Orbiter
Aerocapture System
Cruise/Prop Stage
Delta IV-Heavy C3=16 km^2/s^2
Atlas 551 C3=16 km^2/s^2
Rela
tive G
oal
Scie
nce V
alu
e
A E
ncela
dus o
rbiter
with m
ultip
le
short
liv
ed landers
B E
ncela
dus o
rbiter
with m
ultip
le
long-liv
ed landers
C E
ncela
dus o
rbiter
alo
ne
D E
ncela
dus o
rbiter
becom
ing a
long-liv
ed lander
E E
ncela
dus o
rbiter
with s
ingle
long-liv
ed lander
F L
ow
energ
y S
atu
rn o
rbiter
(fly
bys)
alo
ne
G H
igh e
nerg
y S
atu
rn o
rbiter
(fly
bys)
alo
ne
H L
ow
energ
y S
atu
rn o
rbiter
(fly
bys)
with a
sin
gle
long-liv
ed
lander
I Low
energ
y S
atu
rn o
rbiter
(fly
bys)
with m
ultip
le s
hort
-liv
ed
landers
Cassin
i
Science Goals, Enceladus Mission Science Assessment - 0-10, 10 best
1. What is the heat source, what drives the plume 10 6 7 4 5 5 2 1 3 6 1
2. What is the plume production rate, and does it vary 8 8 9 8 9 9 7 3 8 7 3
3. What are the effects of the plume on the structure and composition of Enceladus? 5 8 9 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2
4. What are the interaction effects of the plume on the Saturnian system 3 7 7 7 6 6 8 7 8 7 7
5. Does the composition and/or existence of the plume give us clues to the origin and evolution of the solar system 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 3
6. Does the plume source environment provide the conditions necessary (or sufficient) to sustain biotic or pre-biotic chemistry 5 8 8 6 7 8 6 5 7 8 3
7. Are other similar bodies (Dione, Tethys, Rhea) also active, and if not, why not? 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 5
Value by Architecture, summed 52 55 45 49 50 42 31 46 51 24
Value by Architecture, weighted, summed, normalized 0.46 0.493 0.393 0.439 0.446 0.353 0.246 0.393 0.449 0.187
or
One man’s concept is another’s doodle…
JPL Innovation Foundry
12
Concept Maturity Level: benchmarking before MDR/PMSR
CML 7CML 6CML 5CML 4
CML 3
CML 2
CML 1
CML 8
Cocktail Napkin
Initial Feasibility
Trade Space
Point Design
Baseline Concept
Integrated Concept
Preliminary Implementation Baseline
Integrated Baseline
F = m aTRL 6
JPL Innovation Foundry
13
An onramp to the NASA project lifecycle
• PMSR (in ΦB)
CML 7CML 6CML 5CML 4
CML 3
CML 2
CML 1
• PDR KDP-C
CML 8
Phase B – Prelim Design & TRL 6
Step 2 – Phase AStep 1 - Proposal
Concept DevelopmentAdvanced Studies
Phase B – PD & TRL6Phase A Pre-Phase A –
Concept DevelopmentAdvanced Studies
Cost
PreviewConcept
ReviewBaseline
Commitment
Review Step 2 Final
TMC Review
• Validation via trades & cost estimates KDP-B
• Requirements defined SRR• “Target” concept KDP-A
• Preliminary design KDP-C
• Decadal Survey white papers, SMD initiation of a Pre-Project
• Point-design Mission Study Report
• Deep plan submit Step 2 CSR
• Stable baseline submit Step 1 Proposal
• Portfolio validation, trade-space focusing
• Point-design concept Release of Draft AO
MCR SRRMDR
PMSR
Competed Projects
Assigned Projects
JPL Innovation Foundry
14
APPLYING EXPERTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Accessing the Matrix. Managing the Environment.
JPL Innovation Foundry
15
¼ of the JPL population engages in proposals
= 50 Lab employees
13 provided institutional support
334 provided Program Office, Line, Review, or Service Support
1026 directly created proposals
27%, 2010 data
JPL Innovation Foundry
A-Team focuses small, expert teams where the leverage is highest
16
Concept baseline engineered, costed,
validated
CML 1
Salient kernel documented
Fundamental feasibility of one
approach validated quantitatively
CML 2 CML 3 CML 4
1-3 reference design options
synthesized
Step 1 baseline ready for proposal
development
CML 5
A-Team Concept team
Team XTeam X Cost
Team X Heritage
Proposal Gate
Portfolio Gate
Concept Gate
Incubation Gate
Trade space understood
Synthesis Gate
• Open trade space
• Frame key questions
• Analyze drivers
• Derive and assess partials
JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
“Analytical fictions” innovated, “partials” quantified, viable options synthesized
Science Value
Cost
Risk
• Avoid fixating on a point solution• Assess many architectures• Understand tradespace maneuverability
Reduction in Mission Return/Consumption of Margin
Small to moderate
Minimal
Moderate
Significant
Mission failure/Overrun
Arch Red Yellow Green2e 0 4 123b 0 4 123c 0 4 125a 0 3 95d 0 3 95b 0 3 85c 0 3 74a 0 2 82c 0 2 73a 0 2 72d 0 1 102f 0 1 92a 0 1 82b 0 1 81a 0 1 5
Architecture RankingMission Risk
Arch Red Yellow Green5a 0 5 65d 0 5 65b 0 4 63c 0 4 44a 0 4 25c 0 3 83b 0 3 52e 0 3 42c 0 2 43a 0 2 42d 0 2 32f 0 2 32a 0 2 32b 0 2 31a 0 1 4
Implementation Risk Architecture Ranking
Reduction in Mission Return/Consumption of Margin
Small to moderate
Minimal
Moderate
Significant
Mission failure/Overrun
Arch Red Yellow Green2e 0 4 123b 0 4 123c 0 4 125a 0 3 95d 0 3 95b 0 3 85c 0 3 74a 0 2 82c 0 2 73a 0 2 72d 0 1 102f 0 1 92a 0 1 82b 0 1 81a 0 1 5
Architecture RankingMission Risk
Arch Red Yellow Green5a 0 5 65d 0 5 65b 0 4 63c 0 4 44a 0 4 25c 0 3 83b 0 3 52e 0 3 42c 0 2 43a 0 2 42d 0 2 32f 0 2 32a 0 2 32b 0 2 31a 0 1 4
Implementation Risk Architecture Ranking
Reduction in Mission Return/Consumption of Margin
Small to moderate
Minimal
Moderate
Significant
Mission failure/Overrun
Arch Red Yellow Green2e 0 4 123b 0 4 123c 0 4 125a 0 3 95d 0 3 95b 0 3 85c 0 3 74a 0 2 82c 0 2 73a 0 2 72d 0 1 102f 0 1 92a 0 1 82b 0 1 81a 0 1 5
Architecture RankingMission Risk
Arch Red Yellow Green5a 0 5 65d 0 5 65b 0 4 63c 0 4 44a 0 4 25c 0 3 83b 0 3 52e 0 3 42c 0 2 43a 0 2 42d 0 2 32f 0 2 32a 0 2 32b 0 2 31a 0 1 4
Implementation Risk Architecture Ranking
19
JPL Innovation Foundry
Concurrent engineering efficiently advances to CML 4
• Architectures
• Space Missions
• Flight Systems
• Instruments
20
JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
22
Upgraded concurrent engineering theaters based on experience of 103 studies
JPL Innovation Foundry
23
PRE-PROJECT PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES
Capturing the Wealth of Lessons Learned
JPL Innovation Foundry
24
Guidance for each concept element
• Science Objectives & Requirements• Mission Development• Spacecraft/Instrument System Design • Ground System Design • Technical Risk• Technology• Inheritance• Master Equipment Lists• Technical Margins• Trade Studies• Modeling & Simulation• Launch Services• Planetary Protection• Verification & Validation
• Acquisition and Surveillance• Project Organization• Schedules & Margins• Cost Estimation & Risks• Project Scope• Documentation• NEPA Compliance• Subsystem Make-Buy• Work Breakdown Structure• Testbeds, Models & Spares• Export Compliance• Mission Assurance Management
Technical Programmatic
JPL Innovation Foundry
25
…organized in the progressive CML framework
JPL Innovation Foundry
26
…and Web-hosted for partner teams
JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
28
Summary: JPL Innovation Foundry is improving NASA mission formulation
• Concepts (CML 1-6)– New tools for low maturity stages where leverage is highest– Seamless transitions through the stages of maturation
• Campaigns (CML 5-6)– Hand-crafting of the pitch
• Formulation skills– Excellence in more than technical dimensions
• Knowledge management– Systematic leveraging of already vetted knowledge products
JPL Innovation Foundry
Dan McCleese, Directordaniel.j.mccleese@jpl.nasa.gov
Brent Sherwood, Managerbrent.sherwood@jpl.nasa.gov
top related