An Integrated Approach to Systems Engineering through Modeling … · 2011. 10. 20. · ISCM Integration Concept. $.0 M $250.0 M $500.0 M $750.0 M $1,000.0 M $1,250.0 M $1,500.0 M

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 22-07-2011

2. REPORT TYPEBriefing Slides

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER FA9300-10-C-4002

An Integrated Approach to Systems Engineering through Modeling and Simulation 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) Michael O’Such

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER484710HZ

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

Advatech Pacific 560 E Hospitality Lane, Ste 400 San Bernardino CA 92408-3545

AFRL-RZ-ED-VG-2011-323

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFMC) AFRL/RZS 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S 5 Pollux Drive NUMBER(S) Edwards AFB CA 93524-7048 AFRL-RZ-ED-VG-2011-323

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited (PA #11553).

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES For presentation at the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference, Portland, OR, 8-11 August 2011.

14. ABSTRACT Modeling and simulation is a key enabler for the systems engineering process and can support the affordability goals for new programs by performing trade studies during the pre-acquisition phase of new programs. Modeling and simulation allows program managers and designers to assess the impact of system requirements and the introduction of new technologies early in the design phase and to assess alternative concepts, identifying the best approach to fulfill the requirements before significant funding has been expended. Advatech Pacific, Inc. (Advatech), is under the direction of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), and with their support is currently developing the Integrated System and Cost Modeling (ISCM) tool suite that addresses the impact of system requirements and technology insertion and explores trade spaces throughout the life cycle of a program.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Tiffany Rexius

a. REPORT Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE Unclassified

SAR

21 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) N/A

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.18

An Integrated Approach to Systems Engineering through Modeling and

Simulation

Presenter:

Michael O’SuchThis material is based upon work supported by

AFRL/RVES and AFRL/RZST under AFRL/RVES Contract No. FA9453-05-D-0002 and AFRL/RZST Contract No. FA9300-10-C-

4002Distribution A: Approved for Public Release (PA# Pending)

1

Advatech Pacific, Inc. Background

An Aerospace Engineering Research & Development Company Founded in 1995 primarily focused on:

Aerospace Vehicle Physics-based Modeling, Simulation and Analysis

Electronic Communications System Interoperability

Aerospace Engineering Design and Analysis Services

2

Distribution A: Approved for Public release (PA#)

Past M&S Efforts

IPAT (Effort Began: 2002) Expansion of Reusable Military Launch System (RMLS) developed at WPAFB Developed for rapid assessment of launch vehicle designs for AFRL/RZST Integration of industry standard tools (CEA, POST, MINIVER, DATCOM) Various propulsion types and vehicle types modeled

ACES-ISET (Effort Began: 2003) Developed to fulfill the need for an overall space mission trade study tool for

AFRL/RV Integrates the Space Mission and Analysis Design worksheet for spacecraft

assessment and additional mass-estimating relationships for small satellites Models spacecraft radiation environment Unmanned Space Vehicle Cost Model, Small Satellite Cost Model, NASA

Instrument Cost Model used to estimate spacecraft costs Integrates launch vehicles from a database of existing launch vehicle or can

import a launch vehicle model from IPAT

3


Past M&S Efforts

ACM (Effort Began: 2006) Uses CERs and acquisition strategies to estimate development,

procurement and top-level launch costs for expendable and solid launch vehicles

CERs developed by Dr. Roy Smoker of MCR using historical program data, statistical analysis, and NASA and DoD TRLs

Incorporates risk assessment

Integrated with IPAT

CONOPS (Effort Began: 2009) Analysis of faculties and labor cost

Launch availability and reliability estimates

Generates baseline launch operations schedule

Integrated with IPAT and ACES-ISET4


ISCM Integration Concept

$.0 M$250.0 M$500.0 M$750.0 M

$1,000.0 M$1,250.0 M$1,500.0 M$1,750.0 M$2,000.0 M$2,250.0 M$2,500.0 M$2,750.0 M$3,000.0 M$3,250.0 M$3,500.0 M$3,750.0 M$4,000.0 M

Cos

t

Funding Profile for Program Changes

Facility Non-Recurring Block 1 Dev. Block 2 Dev. Block 2+ Dev. Production O&M

ISCM Tool

Integrated MS&A

Tool Suite

0.00

500000.00

1000000.00

0 500 1000

Alt

itud

e (f

t)

Time (s)

ACES-ISET

IPAT ACM

CONOPS

Space Vehicle Requirements

Launch Vehicle Requirements

5Distribution A: Approved for Public release (PA#)

ISCM Service-Oriented Architecture

6


sc e ·ce-Or e e c ec

Launch Vehicle Performance


~~ ~ ... -~· ~ :~ .., .... ~ . .... ._'\lt:-"JC41Jtt ;. > tt"oi. l'!"·.t,:~

La

1: ; Ftc:o=v.rt ~..OM • Mt U .f'loptll.tt • 1 11"('1~ w'l'loi'Hir-..,h

9 -no St~t·l a· > ,,. . ..,.,..~..~·•· t > lh·~.~~:·:.lr.c.lu•o fi ,'i IO:t.t:•C\'IItm

I! > Fnof'I'U • 1,oSy •1IW111

.. f.l :.lGI-'IOI)OitOt

·· • Erroto. w'toi1 Gr: l-.('l ,... ";" i· I ·I~"\Jf'I'I .'J

• • f.l XIGPIOilOitOI "*' "7 srrcu:l

i.. . l,l,.~(lll'lfYIItl'l~

0 '·' Peyl:.:ad ~d\CIOI : + ~IU.PIOptRf~

~ y 1".,,.._..1'1 a: } £1.1~ ~.:a.lo:d P:~l:.:~d

+ M tU.PIOptR tt ·•+ lld'l- t'IMI't"l\\

.• , -r.lt: t: r,...."nlllllot • ,, .. l .... = ... ..,~ .i.,.

e t: Ur: llo ' l : c.h:nc.4:;Y-ltcrn 1 Sl J:. t A..f..,.,i.,,

• 01J1CnltO"'Q

t Mocwc~~tl-ko·,

rue:·~ Ad~ j"""

Shalt r' Jn:fl\\

l'o:bl j Uod•t• j ---

ch I e 0 ce

Space Vehicles

SC Bus –Preliminary Sizing

System Sizing Summary

Higher Fidelity S/C SizingPrelim. Sizing

Dynamics

Geometry

Maneuvers

Patched Conic

Budgets

Subject – EM Spectrum

Obs Payload - Optics

Obs Payload - Sizing

Secondary Payloads

Payload

Orbits

Attitude Control

Torques

Sizing

Communications

Uplink

Downlink

Power Sub-Systems

Solar Arrays

Secondary Batteries

Other Primary Sources

Propulsion

Sizing

Thermodynamics

Storage & Feed

Structure

Monocoque

Semi-Monocoque

Thermal

Spherical

Solar Array

SC Bus – Preliminary Sizing

SC Bus –Preliminary Sizing

System Sizing Summary

Higher Fidelity S/C SizingPrelim. Sizing

Dynamics

Geometry

Maneuvers

Patched Conic

Budgets

Subject – EM Spectrum

Obs Payload - Optics

Obs Payload - Sizing

Secondary Payloads

Payload

Orbits

Attitude Control

Torques

Sizing

Communications

Uplink

Downlink

Power Sub-Systems

Solar Arrays

Secondary Batteries

Other Primary Sources

Propulsion

Sizing

Thermodynamics

Storage & Feed

Structure

Monocoque

Semi-Monocoque

Thermal

Spherical

Solar Array

SC Bus – Preliminary Sizing


Launch Vehicle Cost Analysis

Parametric Estimation: AUCi = αiWiβi

Historical data derives cost-estimating relationships (α and β values)

CERs tied to TRLs and project milestones (PDR, CDR, etc)

Complete life-cycle costs with risk analysis (FRISK) incorporated

9



10

TRL NASA Defense Acquisition Management Framework

1 Basic principles observed and reported Paper studies of alternative concepts for meeting a mission

2 Technology concept and/or application formulated

Analysis of alternatives; Validated and approved needs Statement (MNS); Exit criteria: Having specific concept to be pursued and technology exists

3Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept

Concept in hand, but system architecture to be developed; Exit criteria: Development Contract Awarded

4Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

Architecture complete, but components need to be integrated into complete system; Exit criteria: Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

5Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

System prototypes demonstrated in relevant environment; Exit criteria: Critical Design Review (CDR)

6System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

System demonstrated in its intended environment;Exit criteria: System Verification Review (SVR)

7System prototype demonstration in a space (if applicable) environment

Technically Mature; Low Rate Initial Production; Exit Criteria: Initial Operational Capability (IOC)

8 Actual system demonstration and “flight qualified”

Initial Operational Capability; System operationally effective; Exit Criteria: Manufacturing ready for full-rate production

9Actual system “flight-proven” through successful mission operation

Full-rate production; Deploy System; Exit Criteria: Full Operational Capability


Total Program

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

$18,000 $20,000 $22,000 $24,000 $26,000 $28,000 $30,000BY06$M

Prob

abili

ty (%

)

Total Program S-CurvePoint Estimate80%50%

Total Program Schedule

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00Number of Months

Prob

abili

ty


$.0 M$250.0 M$500.0 M$750.0 M

$1,000.0 M$1,250.0 M$1,500.0 M$1,750.0 M$2,000.0 M$2,250.0 M$2,500.0 M$2,750.0 M$3,000.0 M$3,250.0 M$3,500.0 M$3,750.0 M$4,000.0 M

Cos

t

Funding Profile for Program Changes

Facility Non-Recurring Block 1 Dev. Block 2 Dev. Block 2+ Dev. Production O&M

11


Space Vehicle Cost Analysis

Excel-based model includes several validated cost models Unmanned Space Vehicle Cost Model (USCM)

Small Satellite Cost Model (SSCM)

NASA Instrument Cost Model (NICM)

Constructive Cost Model II (COCOMO II)

Air Force Cost Analysis Agency (AFCAA) Schedule Estimating Relationships

FRISK used to apply risk to life-cycle costs

12


Space Vehicle Cost Analysis

Cost model outputs: RDT&E

First unit cost

Additional unit cost

Total cost

Heritage factors applied to RDT&E

Bus and payload information used to generate total RDT&E

Generated cost used to determine IA&T, PL and GSE cost

Outputs broken down by WBS

13


Operations and Maintenance

14


• pe 0 I a c r_: co\o~- - a x

C:=tST M :-,DEL(S)

4 Vchd:l) M!!lOO-~E.tl·p

l> Satellit:

APf"f-~P<t.-!inP~~

~ .... ·(i (bili:y ,, FJ: I tiC$

[> 1-o!el1ab 17)'-~L,....e;,'

Sur;leA'l3)'~h

Tr4ir i·•y Co$t-Sun·n1-:~ry

~agel:on~ >d:.I PdUI: :U11111:11 .~ I

~ ~anned . aundl ~te

~ Prorrpt Globol :Jtrk=:

011 r..Iat

:.:j:eratJ::na support (Y' s) 0

St:lrt)'c.:r

5trhPdid=>

.-ays;(Yl.eek 0 , ::;-.fuft'".tl}' I.: I I

"'t.us1~l i fl () f

0 0

~~ hen f ear

~ l:jase rear

' () I

' 0 ' I'J 1J (_) tz

syr.c schedule b Ml!i:~KrfJpS

• ('O"'f"'3P TPAT VPhiriP

/ ,d\·ancec Coo:: Vcdel

AUC..Oe•1elqrnert (~lioncj J

PI\T

I/IOohr-F f";:"111\Jl' ,'it1nn

~-,deT'tpe r:[E-= - ,--:j -, -. --.--,] J- 513;~::: ~------,

St.lgc l T~pc [lcl.id • ]

@I sole 0 ll:pc

1\Lrnber of Stages

[!] Pa-alel Et.r.,

· I

~uc:: Hi:Jtor} Cnrncnb

l'il ..

· I

Total L3.J"I::h Cod::: (~ilion£) 0

\'FhriP l'lfP ~ ~l'fiPntlAhlt" • 1\l.rnhpr of 110MtFr~ 0 KM~ff'r5: ~FI.AA"lF li\C:

Stage 1 Ty::.: Juquij

:Jb::J=; 2 Tn=: [LiQud

:'itf'Q'" .~ Ty1 .. [l h1UI1

Stage,4Ty:>:! ILiqui:t

:Jtraponl'IJ)e: jooliJ

Ma:cw rc Speed (.l:.ts) 0

S~Qe 2lerct"l (f:)

St.;~E 10iarrr&e,r {tt.! 0

3Wcc= 2 Oi~rrclc=r {ft) 0 ------ ------, 0 ~M,CF .\OiitrrPfPr (ft) U ~·"IJP '\I Frt:M (f)

S:age4lEr£h (t:)

STOpUn DD"lleter (ft) 0

~hrnu: rn;mptf'r (ff) u

O' X

.. X

Operations and Maintenance

15


pe C~T MODEL(S)

B~icleO

0

Total Number of Fights

Number of Prior Flights

Cost Detail

Total Summary in Mmions of Dollars

lo

Run Failure Rate Analysis

Fli~ts FabeRate

Test Fi~ts 5 0.53

Start up 10 0.36

Growth 25 0.19

Midlle 60 0.08

M11turity 0 0.04

<

Total E xp. Failures 115.85

Koaos ana uroun

Specialized Eqcipment $2.3284

• I a c

Exp_ Fabes

2.64

3.55

4.72

4.95

0.00 v

>

$0 $2.3284

$25.2$2.3$104.0749 W297 W391 kg1.5ACDS update (major)1.6b

$23.3$0.4$102.1749 W297 W391 kg1.5ADCS updates for

10¼/sec slew rate1.6a

$22.9$1.3$101.7749 W297 W396 kg1.4bArticulated Solar Arrays1.5

$21.6$24.9$100.4749 W297 W376 kg1.3bSubsystem upgrade(chemical propulsion)1.4b

$21.9$25.2$100.71112 W292 W350 kg1.3aSubsystem Upgrade(HET propulsion)1.4a

- $3.3$2.3$75.5749 W297 W376 kg1.2Chemical propulsion1.3b

- $3.2$2.4$75.61112 W292 W350 kg1.2HET propulsion1.3a

- $5.6$2.2$73.2737 W285 W337 kg1.1Extend Mission Life1.2

- $7.8$1.3$71.0737 W285 W337 kg1.0Payload Reduction1.1

- $8.5$70.3936 W295 W358 kg0Duplicate baseline1.0

$78.8936 W295 W358 kgTacSat-3 Baseline0

frombaseline

∆ frombasisCost

PeakPowerOAPMassBasisDescriptionCase

∆

$25.2$2.3$104.0749 W297 W391 kg1.5ACDS update (major)1.6b

$23.3$0.4$102.1749 W297 W391 kg1.5ADCS updates for

10¼/sec slew rate1.6a

$22.9$1.3$101.7749 W297 W396 kg1.4bArticulated Solar Arrays1.5

$21.6$24.9$100.4749 W297 W376 kg1.3bSubsystem upgrade(chemical propulsion)1.4b

$21.9$25.2$100.71112 W292 W350 kg1.3aSubsystem Upgrade(HET propulsion)1.4a

- $3.3$2.3$75.5749 W297 W376 kg1.2Chemical propulsion1.3b

- $3.2$2.4$75.61112 W292 W350 kg1.2HET propulsion1.3a

- $5.6$2.2$73.2737 W285 W337 kg1.1Extend Mission Life1.2

- $7.8$1.3$71.0737 W285 W337 kg1.0Payload Reduction1.1

- $8.5$70.3936 W295 W358 kg0Duplicate baseline1.0

$78.8936 W295 W358 kgTacSat-3 Baseline0

frombaseline

∆ frombasisCost

PeakPowerOAPMassBasisDescriptionCase

∆

Not re

leased b

y A

FR

L

SacecraftSpacecraft Bus

EO 0 0 1 2 3 7 4 10 2 6Radar 0 0 0 1 3 4 6 3 5 5Comm 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 6 2

Total Busses 0 0 1 3 7 13 13 13 13 13Bus Cost 3020 1,422,464$ 17,865,671$ 55,933,097$ 266,807,984$ 391,427,381$ 306,182,107$ 310,774,838$ 315,436,461$ 320,168,008$ 324,970,528$

Payload

No of EO Payloads 0 0 1 2 3 7 4 10 2 6Cost of EO payloads 3020 12,204,278$ 49,897,064$ 129,411,873$ 153,876,151$ 184,981,789$ 138,108,300$ 130,813,382$ 132,774,640$ 154,064,397$ 156,375,363$

No of Radar Payloads 0 0 0 1 3 4 6 3 5 5Cost of Radar payloads 3020 4,379,399$ 39,569,824$ 131,409,947$ 211,277,865$ 192,321,782$ 170,146,350$ 180,116,266$ 197,876,599$ 200,845,590$ 203,858,274$

No of Unprot Comm Payloads 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 6 2Cost of Unprot Comm payloads 3020 3,853,046$ 23,465,049$ 49,339,707$ 80,309,723$ 58,167,129$ 86,671,188$ 93,279,085$ 83,901,754$ 63,285,579$ 64,234,863$

Launch VehicleMinotaur I 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 5 1 3

Minotaur IV 0 0 0 1 3 5 6 4 7 6Falcon 1e 0 0 0 1 3 5 4 4 4 4

Cost 3020 -$ -$ -$ 42,965,879$ 102,477,835$ 192,544,047$ 209,135,239$ 197,233,869$ 208,041,777$ 218,688,197$

Infrastructure

Launch Site Modifications 3020 32,858,946$ 77,820,937$ 56,420,179$ 34,359,889$ 23,250,192$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Tracking Site Modifications (HDW) 3020 16,500,000$ 39,077,500$ 28,331,188$ 17,253,693$ 11,674,999$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Tracking Site Modifications (SW) 3600 2,100,000$ 4,973,500$ 3,605,788$ 2,195,925$ 1,485,909$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Satellite Ops Costs after Launch 3400 -$ -$ -$ 14,053,917$ 40,416,724$ 79,632,834$ 95,523,204$ 96,956,052$ 93,363,706$ 97,325,355$ Launch Services Costs 3400 $0 $0 $0 $32,615,274 $82,231,672 $156,275,881 $162,884,255 $157,008,412 $165,059,685 $170,324,543

GSE/Range Mods/Storage 3400 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,904,127$ 2,947,688$ 2,991,904$ 3,036,782$ 3,082,334$ MMSOC Upgrages 3600 750,000$ 1,776,250$ 1,287,781$ 784,259$ 530,682$ 1,077,284$ 1,093,443$ 1,109,845$ 1,126,493$ 1,143,390$

SDTW/RSS 3600 1,168,750$ 1,186,281$ 1,204,075$ 733,282$ 496,187$ 906,534$ 920,133$ 933,934$ 947,944$ 962,163$ RRSW 3600 1,122,985$ 2,237,151$ 1,874,613$ 1,337,488$ 1,402,001$ 3,554,916$ 3,608,239$ 3,662,363$ 3,717,298$ 3,773,058$

subtotal 76,359,868$ 257,869,227$ 458,818,249$ 858,571,330$ 1,090,864,282$ 1,138,003,567$ 1,191,095,773$ 1,189,885,833$ 1,213,657,259$ 1,244,738,066$

Infrastructure3020 71,218,133$ 247,696,045$ 450,845,991$ 806,851,184$ 964,301,106$ 893,651,992$ 924,118,811$ 927,223,323$ 946,405,351$ 968,127,224$ 3400 $0 $0 $0 $46,669,191 $122,648,396 $238,812,841 $261,355,147 $256,956,368 $261,460,173 $270,732,2323600 $5,141,735 $10,173,182 $7,972,257 $5,050,954 $3,914,779 $5,538,734 $5,621,815 $5,706,142 $5,791,734 $5,878,610

Total 76,359,868$ 257,869,227$ 458,818,249$ 858,571,330$ 1,090,864,282$ 1,138,003,567$ 1,191,095,773$ 1,189,885,833$ 1,213,657,259$ 1,244,738,066$

Evaluated multiple vehicles including Falcon 1 Falcon 1 results: Predicted early failures (tool assessment) 3.5 of first 5 will fail - uncorrected Identified three failure modes - seasoned expert opinions

– Common bulkhead (2 upper stages damaged/destroyed in de-tanking prior to first launch - assertion)

– Inexperienced technicians and processes (induced failures -improperly assembled/torqued fuel fitting - tool assessment)

– Staging without positive control (upper stage contacted inter stage on separation - led to mission failure)

Small Launch Vehicle StudySmall Launch Vehicle Study

Previous Studies

“Operational” TacSat-3 Procurement Costs Relative to Changes in DesignResults produced in a few hours after

design found to deviate from requirements - Identified impacts of

changes

Facility Set-up and Sustainment for Rapid Response Space Works

Comprehensive Life Cycle Cost Analysis completed in two months -

Fully Reusable Two Stage To Orbit Vehicle Optimized

68% Reduction in Orbital Weight40% Reduction in Gross Vehicle Weight – What if study looking at

TSTO options

Small Launch Vehicle Study of Falcon 1 Vehicle

Predicted 3.5 Failures Out of First 5 Flights (Note: Current Falcon 1 Failures are at 3 of 4 launches)

• Schedule• Operability• Performance

Knowledge DatabaseBuildup

• Cost• Risk• CONOPS


Source solicitation evaluation Tiger Team approach Thirteen concepts evaluated (classified and unclassified) Identified and quantified issues with concept proposals:

Projected costs that exceed available budget

Costs that assume payload design heritages not supported in proposal

High risk payloads based on low TRLs, long development schedules or payloads exceeding mass budget limits

Identified and quantified issues with transitioning to operational version Demonstrated that some proposals/CONOPS

Contained inconsistent assumptions

Contained questionable assumptions that needed further investigation

TacSat -5 Concept EvaluationsStudy Highlights

Stage Nominal Dry Weight (lbm)

Achieved Dry Weight (lbm)

Weight Difference (lbm)

Nominal Loaded Weight (lbm)

Percent Difference (% total stage weight)

Atlas V Fairing 5,046 4,982 -64 5,046 -1.3

Atlas V Upper Stage 4,599 5,396 797 50,521 1.6

Atlas V First Stage 46,098 50,463 4,365 672,407 0.6

Delta II Upper Stage 162.5 180.7 18.2 2,512.5 0.7

Delta II Second Stage 2,096 1,168 -928 15,332 -6.1

Delta II First Stage 12,980 16,129 3,149 224,301 1.4

Falcon 1 Fairing 320 332 12 320 3.8

Falcon 1 Upper Stage 1,200 979 -221 10,100 -2.2

Falcon 1 First Stage 3,000 4,133 1,133 50,380 2.2

Minotaur I Fairing 427 373 -54 427 -12.7

Minotaur I Fourth Stage 278 278 0 1,977 0

Minotaur I Third Stage 918 962 44 9,551 0.5

Minotaur I Second Stage 1524 1753 229 15,506 1.5

Minotaur I First Stage 4,955 5,055 100 50,885 0.2

Previous Studies (cont’d)

Four Launch Vehicles Modeled In ISCM

Delta II, Atlas V, Minotaur I, Falcon 1Modeled weights within 2%

of published values

Thirteen Concepts for TacSat – 5 Evaluated Using Tool Suite

Identified requirements not met and inaccurate understated estimates

Sensitivity Study: Quantifying System Level Effects of Subsystem Changes

Identified two areas for future focused research that will maximize return on

research investment

ORS Seven Sisters Mission CostProcurement and total mission cost

estimate for ORS missions and launch scenarios –

Completed in less than 7 days Within 5% of other independent estimates

• Schedule• Operability• Performance

Knowledge DatabaseBuildup

• Cost• Risk• CONOPS


SummarySolution to Early Design Challenges of High-Performance Complex Systems

Integrated optimizing tools provide:

In Days / Weeks

Not Months

PotentialSolutions

Feedback

ISCM Tool SuiteSystem/Sub-system

Mission/SystemRequirements Operational

Assumptions, Conditions and Constraints

Size, weight, power New technology

insertion Performance Schedule

•••

�

Single User Interface

Payload Module

Structural Module

Propulsion Module

Trajectory Module

Operations Module

Cost/Risk Module

Integration CoreModule

KnowledgeDatabase

18


Future Work Improved trajectory optimization for heavily constrained

problems

Enhanced mass estimating relationship

Increase fidelity of risk assessment

Improve historical data

Model additional vehicle classes: Aircraft Rotorcraft Armored vehicles Transport vehicles Communication networks

19


Questions?

20


Documents

An Integrated Approach to Systems Engineering through Modeling … · 2011. 10. 20. · ISCM Integration Concept. $.0 M $250.0 M $500.0 M $750.0 M $1,000.0 M $1,250.0 M $1,500.0 M