B sherwood dmc_cleese

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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


8

MEETING THE CHALLENGEJPL 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


10

Every mission starts with a spark

Mission Architecture

Technology Engineering

Science

A mission concept

An invention

A question


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…


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


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


14

APPLYING EXPERTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Accessing the Matrix. Managing the Environment.


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


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




“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


Small to moderate

Minimal

Moderate

Significant







Small to moderate

Minimal

Moderate

Significant






19


Concurrent engineering efficiently advances to CML 4

• Architectures

• Space Missions

• Flight Systems

• Instruments

20



22

Upgraded concurrent engineering theaters based on experience of 103 studies


23

PRE-PROJECT PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES

Capturing the Wealth of Lessons Learned


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


25

…organized in the progressive CML framework


26

…and Web-hosted for partner teams



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


Dan McCleese, [email protected]

Brent Sherwood, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]