Understand that technology has different levels of maturity and that lower maturity levels come with higher risks.

Similar documents
Mid Term Exam SES 405 Exploration Systems Engineering 3 March Your Name

The Global Exploration Roadmap International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG)

Miguel A. Aguirre. Introduction to Space. Systems. Design and Synthesis. ) Springer

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course. Lesson 2.2 Selecting the Best Technical Alternative. Selecting the Best Technical Alternative

Panel Session IV - Future Space Exploration

NASA Cost Symposium Multivariable Instrument Cost Model-TRL (MICM-TRL)

Constellation Systems Division

HEOMD Update NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Oct. 16, 2014

ARTES Competitiveness & Growth Full Proposal. Requirements for the Content of the Technical Proposal. Part 3B Product Development Plan

Flexibility for in Space Propulsion Technology Investment. Jonathan Battat ESD.71 Engineering Systems Analysis for Design Application Portfolio

When Failure Means Success: Accepting Risk in Aerospace Projects NASA Project Management Challenge 2009

GAMMa - A modular ascender concept for sample return missions

In Space Propulsion Overview January Outline. Les Johnson Manager, In Space Propulsion Technology Projects Office

NASA s Space Launch System: Powering the Journey to Mars. FISO Telecon Aug 3, 2016

Exploration Systems Research & Technology

Dream Chaser for European Utilization (DC 4 EU):

Analysis of European Architectures for Space Exploration

Jerome Tzau TARDEC System Engineering Group. UNCLASSIFIED: Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release. 14 th Annual NDIA SE Conf Oct 2011

A Call for Boldness. President Kennedy September 1962

Uranus Exploration Challenges

Airbus DS ESA Phase-0 L5 Spacecraft/Orbital Concept Overview. Emanuele Monchieri 6 th March 2017

CYLICAL VISITS TO MARS VIA ASTRONAUT HOTELS

Incorporating a Test Flight into the Standard Development Cycle

launch probability of success

NASA s Human Space Exploration Capability Driven Framework

Technology readiness evaluations for fusion materials science & technology

C. R. Weisbin, R. Easter, G. Rodriguez January 2001

Questions for the 2018 RASC-AL Q&A Session

Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0

A RENEWED SPIRIT OF DISCOVERY

ESA PREPARATION FOR HUMAN LUNAR EXPLORATION. Scott Hovland European Space Agency, HME-HFH, ESTEC,

Committee on Astrobiology & Planetary Science (CAPS) Michael H. New, PhD Astrobiology Discipline Scientist

hal , version 1-15 Feb 2012

Human Spaceflight: The Ultimate Team Activity

The International Lunar Network (ILN) and the US Anchor Nodes mission

Enabling Technologies for robotic and human Exploration

Systems Engineering Overview. Axel Claudio Alex Gonzalez

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Human Spaceflight Architecture Team Cis-Lunar Analysis. M. Lupisella 1, M. R. Bobskill 2

The use of technical readiness levels in planning the fusion energy development

Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) Update to the Small Bodies Assessment Group

Two Different Views of the Engineering Problem Space Station

NASA Keynote to International Lunar Conference Mark S. Borkowski Program Executive Robotic Lunar Exploration Program

Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Levels [Draft]

Space Architecture MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Space Architecture. ENAE 483/788D - Principles of Space Systems Design

System Architecture Module Exploration Systems Engineering, version 1.0

NASA s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. May 2, 2007

ESA Human Spaceflight Capability Development and Future Perspectives International Lunar Conference September Toronto, Canada

The JPL A-Team and Mission Formulation Process

Design for Affordability in Complex Systems and Programs Using Tradespace-based Affordability Analysis

The Virtual Spacecraft Reference Facility

Technology Capabilities and Gaps Roadmap

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) United States Marine Corps Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) 2014

Action Vehicle Action Surface Systems. -Exc. -Processing -Growth

Introduction to MATE-CON. Presented By Hugh McManus Metis Design 3/27/03

NASA's Lunar Orbital Platform-Gatway

A RENEWED SPIRIT OF DISCOVERY

LV-POD Executive Summary Report

Chapter 2 Planning Space Campaigns and Missions

Method for CubeSat Thermal-Vacuum testing specification

COST-BASED LAUNCH OPPORTUNITY SELECTION APPLIED TO RENDEZVOUS WITH APOPHIS

ARTES Competitiveness & Growth Full Proposal. Requirements for the Content of the Technical Proposal

Science Plenary II: Science Missions Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion. Chair / Organizer: Steven D. Howe Center for Space Nuclear Research

NASA TA-02 In-space Propulsion Roadmap Priorities

NanoSwarm: CubeSats Enabling a Discovery Class Mission Jordi Puig-Suari Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems

Human Mars Architecture

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN-MARS-MISSION TECHNOLOGIES AND ARCHITECTURES

GUIDELINES FOR STRATEGIC RESEARCH CLUSTER ON IN-SPACE

NASA Mars Exploration Program Update to the Planetary Science Subcommittee

Lesson 17: Science and Technology in the Acquisition Process

Call for Ideas. for the Next Exploration Science and Technology Mission of the European Space Exploration Programme - Aurora

Orbiter Cockpit Liang Sim, Kevin R. Duda, Thaddeus R. F. Fulford-Jones, Anuja Mahashabde December 9, 2005

Feasibility Analysis for a Manned Mars Free-Return Mission in 2018

Space Challenges Preparing the next generation of explorers. The Program

NEO Science and Human Space Activity. Mark V. Sykes Director, Planetary Science Institute Chair, NASA Small Bodies Assessment Group

Creating the Cislunar Economy

STEM Teacher Roundtable Aerospace Engineering Sean Tully CRS/Cygnus Systems Engineering Manager

Technical Readiness Level For Plasma Control

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment Overview

Moog CSA Engineering CubeSat Payload Accommodations and Propulsive Adapters. 11 th Annual CubeSat Developer s Workshop 25 April 2014

Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Business Case Considerations An Enabler of Risk Reduction

Space Settlement Laboratory

Office of Chief Technologist - Space Technology Program Dr. Prasun Desai Office of the Chief Technologist May 1, 2012

U.S. Space Exploration in the Next 20 NASA Space Sciences Policy

WHAT IS A CUBESAT? DragonSat-1 (1U CubeSat)

AVSS Project. ENAE483 Fall 2012

Future Directions: Strategy for Human and Robotic Exploration. Gary L. Martin Space Architect

This document is a preview generated by EVS

IAC-13-A3.1.3.x17944 COORDINATED ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS FOR THE GLOBAL EXPLORATION ROADMAP: THE GER TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MAP

On January 14, 2004, the President announced a new space exploration vision for NASA

MSL Lessons Learned Study. Presentation to NAC Planetary Protection Subcommittee April 29, 2013 Mark Saunders, Study Lead

Course Overview/Design Project

Design and Operation of Micro-Gravity Dynamics and Controls Laboratories

ESA Preparation for Human Exploration ACQUIRING CAPABILITIES

Air Force Institute of Technology. A CubeSat Mission for Locating and Mapping Spot Beams of GEO Comm-Satellites

Readiness Assessment for Video Cell Phones SE 602

GLEX x12269 ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE ISECG GLOBAL EXPLORATION ROADMAP

GAO NASA. Agency Has Taken Steps Toward Making Sound Investment Decisions for Ares I but Still Faces Challenging Knowledge Gaps

Technology readiness applied to materials for fusion applications

Potential Mission Applications for Space Nuclear Systems

Transcription:

Technology 1 Agenda Understand that technology has different levels of maturity and that lower maturity levels come with higher risks. Introduce the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale used to assess the maturity of technology for space flight. Demonstrate the correlation between technology readiness and risk. Describe how system risk can be reduced by early technology development of low TRL technologies. Use JWST as an example of a system using enabling technologies and early technology development to reduce project risks. 2 1

The Systems Engineer Considers New Technology for Space Missions In developing alternative system architectures, different performance and resource allocations are made. In some cases new technology is considered for a subsystem since it is necessary for success - it enables the mission. In other cases new technology is considered for a subsystem because it makes it easier on the other subsystems - it enhances the mission. In both cases, the systems engineer must balance the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives to choose an implementation baseline. New technologies are always being developed with higher inspace performance. So the systems engineer must weigh the promise of new performance against the confidence of what has been done before. The technology readiness scale was developed to help systems engineers assess the risks associates with using new technology. 3 Introduction: Technology Readiness Levels The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a classification scale used to measure the maturity of a technology. Describes the state-of-the-art of a given technology Provides a baseline from which to advance (ultimately to flight) TRLs range from 1 - basic technology research to 9 - demonstrated operational capability in space. Typically, a TRL of 6 - technology demonstrated in a relevant environment - is required for a flight project development to be approved for implementation. TRLs indicate the inherent development risk. A TRL of 1 or 2 represents a situation of relatively high risk TRLs of 3-5 represent moderate risks TRLs of 6-9 represent low risks 4 2

Technology Readiness Level Uses the Demonstrated Maturity to Estimate Development Risk Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a measure used to assess the maturity of evolving technologies (materials, components, devices, etc.) prior to incorporating that technology into a system or subsystem. Low Risk High Risk 5 Technology Readiness Levels System Test, Launch & Operations System/Subsystem Development Technology Demonstration Technology Development Research to Prove Feasibility Basic Technology Research Actual system flight proven through successful mission operations Actual system completed and flight qualified through test and demonstration (Ground or Flight) System prototype demonstration in a space environment System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (Ground or Space) Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic acte c proof-of-concept o cept Technology concept and/or application formulated Basic principles observed and reported Defining TRL = determining Figure 5. Technology what Readiness was demonstrated Levels and under what conditions. 6 3

Lower TRL Technology Requires More Time and Money to Be Flight Ready Risk can be translated into cost impact. TRL Added Cost % 1. Basic principles/research observed and reported. 2. Technology concept and/or application formulated. 3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept. 4. Component and/or breadboard validation in lab environment. 5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment. 6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment. (ground or space) 7. System prototype demonstration in an operational (space) environment. 8. Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. ( flight qualified ) 9. Actual system proven through successful mission operations. ( flight proven ) >25% >25% 20-25% 15-20% 10-15% <10% <10% <5% 0% 7 Summary The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale is used to assign maturity levels to technology considered for space flight. Low TRLs, or low technology maturity, correlate with development risk. Early development of enabling, low maturity technologies can reduce the development risk of a system. 8 4

Trade Studies 9 Agenda Describe the typical trade study process and show an example. Recognize that trade studies support decision making throughout the project lifecycle. Provide some trade study heuristics to improve the application and value of future trade studies. Describe and provide a trade tree - an option management graphic. 10 5

What is a Trade Study? A trade study (or trade-off study) is a formal tool that supports decision making. A trade study is an objective comparison with respect to performance, cost, schedule, risk, and all other reasonable criteria of all realistic alternative requirements; architectures; baselines; or design, verification, manufacturing, deployment, training, operations, support, or disposal approaches. A trade study documents the requirements, assumptions, criteria and priorities used for a decision. This is useful since new information frequently arises and decisions are re-evaluated. 11 Trade Studies Support Decision Making Throughout the Development Lifecycle Trade studies support: Requirements development - e.g., to resolve conflicts; to resolve TBDs and TBRs Functional allocations - e.g., system architecture development System synthesis - e.g., assess the impact of alternative performance or resource allocations Investigate alternate technologies for risk or cost reduction Assess proposed design changes Make/buy decisions (i.e., build the part from a new design or buy from commercial, existing sources) 12 6

The Trade Study Process 1. Define the objectives of the trade study 2. Review inputs, including the constraints and assumptions 3. Choose the evaluation criteria and their relative importance (these can be qualitative) 4. Identify and select the alternatives 5. Assess the performance of each option for each criteria 6. Compare the results and choose an option 7. Document the trade study process and its results 13 The Trade Study Process 14 7

Evaluation Criteria Measures Trade studies depend upon having criteria for making decisions based on measures of effectiveness (voice of the customer) and measures of performance (voice of the engineer). Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) - A measure of how well mission objectives are achieved. MOEs are implementation independent - they assess how well not how. Example measures of effectiveness include Life cycle cost Schedule, e.g., development time, mission duration Technology readiness level (maturity of concept/hardware) Crew capacity Payload Mass 15 Evaluation Criteria Measures Measure of Performance (MOP) - A quantitative measure that, when met by the design solution, will help ensure that an MOE for a product or system will be satisfied. There are generally two or more measures of performance for each MOE. Example measures of performance Mass Power consumption Specific impulse Consumables required Propellant type Both MOEs and MOPs are system figures of merit; an MOE refers to the effectiveness of a solution and an MOP is a measure of a particular design. 16 8

Trade Study Heuristics 1. Rules of Thumb: Manage the number of options under consideration Revisit the original problem statement If a baseline solution is established, use it as a yardstick to measure the alternatives. 2. Decisions are frequently made with imperfect information. 1. Do not get stuck in analysis paralysis. 2. Decide how deep the analysis must go. {Deep enough to make a decision with confidence, but no deeper.} 3. Does the decision feel right? If not, why? 4. Conduct further what-if scenarios by changing assumptions. 5. Reject alternatives that do not meet an essential requirement. 6. Ignore evaluation criteria that do not discriminate between alternatives. 7. Trades are usually subjective; numeric results usually give a false sense of accuracy. 8. If an apparent preferred option is not decisively superior, further analysis is warranted. 17 Do A Reality Check On The Tentative Selection Key questions to ask: Have the requirements and constraints truly been met? Is the tentative selection heavily dependent on a particular set of input values and assumptions, or does it hold up under a range of reasonable input values (i.e., is it robust )? Are there sufficient data to back up the tentative selection? Are the measurement methods sufficiently discriminating to be sure that the tentative selection is really better than the alternatives? If close results, is further analysis warranted? Have the subjective aspects of the problem been fully addressed? Test the decision robustness. Is the tentative selection very sensitive to an estimated performance or constraint? If so, explore the full reasonable range of each performance variable to understand the domain where your tentative selection is appropriate. 18 9

Trade Trees A trade tree is a graphical method of capturing alternatives with multiple variables. Each layer of the tree represents some aspect of the system that will be treated in a trade study to determine the best alternative. Some alternatives can be eliminated (or pruned ) a priori because of technical feasibility, launch vehicle constraints, cost, risk or some other disqualifying factor. The total number of alternatives is given by the number of end points of the tree. Even with just a few layers, the number of alternatives can increase quickly, so manage their numbers. 19 Top-level Trade Tree-Example for Mars Mission Type Cargo Deployment 1988 Mars Expedition 1989 Mars Evolution 1990 90-Day Study 1991 Synthesis Group 1995 DRM 1 1997 DRM 3 1998 DRM 4 1999 Dual Landers 1989 Zubrin, et.al* 1994-99 Borowski, et.al 2000 SERT (SSP) 2002 NEP Art. Gravity 2001 DPT/NEXT M1 2005 MSFC MEPT M2 2005 MSFC NTP MSA Conjunction Class Long Surface Stay Human Exploration Of Mars Decision Package 1 Long vs Short Opposition Class Short Surface Stay Pre-Deploy All-up Pre-Deploy All-up Special Case 1-year Round-trip Mars Capture Method Aerocapture Propulsive Aerocapture Propulsive Aerocapture Propulsive Aerocapture Propulsive Ascent ellant Mars A Prope Interplanetary Propulsion (no hybrids in Phase 1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 M2 M2 M2 20 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 - Nuclear Thermal Rocket = Solar or Nuclear Propulsion 10

Trade Study Considerations Assumptions Trade studies are based on assumptions the team makes. Examples of driving assumptions: Crew size assumption drives the amount of consumables and the viability of an open ECLSS versus partially closed ECLSS. Mission duration assumption drives the amount of power required which in turn drives the choice of power subsystem. Landing location on the moon drives delta-v requirements which in turn drives best orbit selection and propulsion subsystem. Changing assumptions within the trade study allows the team to perform a what-if analysis. Allows the team to understand the integrity of the design alternative selected Shows the importance of that assumption 21 Trade Study Considerations Mission environment The trade space for subsystem alternatives is often defined by the space environment for the mission. Why use RTGs when the mission is at 1 AU or on the Moon. When do we use RTGs? For deep space missions i where solar intensity i is less. Types of thermal control - need to consider the operating temperature extremes Types of rendezvous and landing with a NEO - need to understand the orbit, spin and known composition of asteroid Sometimes the worst of the space environment, such as a solar particle event (SPE) for radiation, can be avoided by operational solutions rather than design solutions, i.e., perform the mission i during the minimum of the solar cycle or using early warning sentinel satellites. Lunar missions - is your system operating at one particular location or region (like Apollo at equatorial latitudes), or at global sites depending on the particular mission? 22 11

Trade Study Considerations Importance of information for each alternative Trade study analysis should use information that is relevant. Extraneous information can distract the decision maker. Materials example: Do material characteristics such as tensile strength and Poisson s ratio really matter in the selection process. In considering so many material alternatives, was heritage considered as a design factor, i.e, has this material flown on previous space missions? If not, what is the cost to your project for bringing that technology up to flight-ready status? Did you violate one of your original mission scope assumptions of using current state-of-the-art technology? In considering material alternatives, were other correlated factors included which would shorten the trade space to begin with, such as material s impact on radiation protection; use for a pressure vessel vs. landing struts. 23 Trade Study Considerations Trade study vs. spacecraft design Is a trade study really necessary? Cargo capsule example: Structural design of capsule is not a trade. Evaluation criteria are the design characteristics; heritage is reference information for actual design work. Seismic vehicle example: Two existing concepts versus determining which characteristics are most valuable for your team design to include Mars habitat example: What are the communications requirements for the mission (voice, video, etc) => amount of bandwidth to specify for comm subsystem. What makes for a successful mission? Answer defines which trades are of most importance & might drive additional trades. Maximum surface exploration time => robust power and ECLSS Precise NEO orbit tracking for X years => tracking method 1-week cargo delivery => launch vehicle availability and mission plan 24 12

Summary Trade studies are common decision-support tools that are used throughout the project lifecycle to capture and help assess alternatives. The steps in the trade study process are: 1. Define the objectives of the trade study 2. Review inputs, including the constraints and assumptions 3. Choose the evaluation criteria and their relative importance 4. Identify and select the alternatives 5. Assess the performance of each option for each criteria 6. Compare the results and choose an option 7. Document the trade study process and its results Trade trees are graphical tools that help manage multi-variable options. 25 13