Charles.leising

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, California

Increasing the Robustness of Flight Project Concepts

Project Manager Challenge

C.J. LeisingB. SherwoodDr. M. Adler

Dr. R. WessenDr. F. Naderi

February 9, 2010Copyright 2009 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

Used with permission



“A Tale of Two Cities”



Current Environment -Concept Development

• Lack of insight, resources, workforce or time to assess all significant risks

• Inability to communicate concept maturity

• Minimum guidelines on how to incorporate or evaluate concept “robustness”

• Competitive, cost capped environment

• Fewer new starts, desire to win and unwarranted optimism

2/9/2010 3PM Challenge

Pre-Phase A and Formulation Phase Life Cycle(Updated 10.26.2009)

• Identify & Develop New Concepts

• Perform Advanced Studies• Assess Sci Drivers• Identify Technology Options

• Develop Innovative Mission Concepts for Rapid Proposal Response

• Identify Driving Requirements

• Perform Technology Evaluation

• Develop Step 1 Proposal, With Recommended Level 1 Reqts, S/C Concept, Cost & Sched

• Develop Step 2 Concept Study Report, With Final Mission & Sci Reqts, S/C Concept, Technology Assessment, Cost & Schedule

• Assemble Project Team

• Validate Implementation Approach

• Develop Prelim Project Plan & PIP

Major Project Gates & Reviews

AO release

ProjectSelection

DraftAO

DownSelect

ProjectPhase

Step 2Proposal

Concept Development

Phase BPreliminary Design andTechnology Completion

Advanced Studies

PMSRPortfolio Gate

ConceptReview

BaselineCommitment Review/Gate

Step 1

ProposalImplementationRisk Review

Step 1Proposal

PDR

KDP-C

• Develop Final Sys Reqts• Develop Prelim Design• Develop Baseline Project

Plan and PIP• Develop Phase C/D Plan

PIs identify mission concepts

CostPreview

Step 2

ProposalReviews

Commitment Gate/Proposal

Submitted

Site Visit

CSR Submitted

• Develop Draft Mission Reqts• Perform Mission and S/C Studies and

Technology Evaluation• Propose Baseline Mission Concept• Develop Phase A Plan

• Develop Prelim Sys Reqts• Complete Technology Assessment• Baseline Mission and S/C Concepts• Develop Prelim Project Plan, PIP and &

Final Technology Development Plan• Develop Phase B Plan• Assemble Project Team

Initiate Pre-Project

AcquisitionStrategy Meeting

SRR MDR

KDP-BKDP-AScienceDefinition

Team

InstrumentAO

Science Advisory Group

Phase AConcept & Technology

Development

Pre-Phase AConcept Development

Advanced StudiesProjectPhase

• Identify & Develop New Concepts

• Perform Advanced Studies• Assess Sci Drivers• Identify Technology Options

• Develop Final Sys Reqts• Develop Prelim Mission and S/C Design• Develop Baseline Project Plan & PIP• Develop Phase C/D Plan• Demonstrate Technology Form/Fit/Function

KDP-C

PDR

Phase BPreliminary Design and Technology Completion

Major Project

Milestones & Reviews

MissionStudy Report MCR




Review Detail

- CML tied to a life cycle milestone


AO Release

DraftAO

DownSelect

ProjectPhase

Step 2Proposal

Concept Development

Advanced Studies

Portfolio Gate

ConceptReview

BaselineCommitmentReview/Gate

Step 1

Proposal Implementation Risk Review

Step 1Proposal

CostPreview

PI’s identify mission concepts

CommitmentGate/Proposal

Submitted

Step 2

- CML that occurs between life cycle milestones

321 4 5CML




Additional Improvements and Innovations

• New Metric - Concept Maturity Levels

• New P4 document that quantifies requirements and guidelines

• New tools and templates

• Increased Formulation Team support

• Organizational improvements

• New training for pre-phase A community




Absent: a Common Language for Concepts

• Planetary Projects are overrunning their budgets during development- Concept baselines are the basis for establishing project costs

• Need a common language to assess a concept’s completeness, robustness and maturity

How mature is

your concept?

Trades CommentsLaunch 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

-

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

$FY0

6M

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

Goa

l Sci

ence

Val

ue

A En

cela

dus

orbi

ter w

ith m

ultip

le

shor

t liv

ed la

nder

s

B En

cela

dus

orbi

ter w

ith m

ultip

le

long

-live

d la

nder

s

C En

cela

dus

orbi

ter a

lone

D En

cela

dus

orbi

ter b

ecom

ing

a lo

ng-li

ved

land

er

E En

cela

dus

orbi

ter w

ith s

ingl

e lo

ng-li

ved

land

er

F Lo

w en

ergy

Sat

urn

orbi

ter

(flyb

ys) a

lone

G H

igh

ener

gy S

atur

n or

bite

r (fl

ybys

) alo

ne

H Lo

w en

ergy

Sat

urn

orbi

ter

(flyb

ys) w

ith a

sin

gle

long

-live

d la

nder

I Low

ene

rgy

Satu

rn o

rbite

r (fl

ybys

) with

mul

tiple

sho

rt-liv

ed

land

ers

Cass

ini

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 24. 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 37. 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




What’s in a Mission Concept?

EngineeringElements

Proposal

Concepts are composed of engineering and management elements

Management Elements


Engineering Elements• Mission Objectives & Requirements• Mission Design• Spacecraft System Design• Ground System Design• Technical Risk Assessment & Mitigation• Technical Maturity• Inheritance• Master Equipment List• Technical Margins• Trade Space• Mission Assurance Approach• Modeling & Simulation Approach• Launch Vehicle Options• Planetary Protection Approach

Management Elements• Acquisition Approach• Project Organization• Schedules & Margins• Cost, Cost Risks & Reserves• Implementation Plans• Subsystem Make-Buy• Work Breakdown Structure• Testbeds, Models & Spares• Coordinated Cost, Schedule & Scope

Elements of a Concept




A Powerful Communication Tool

PreliminaryDesignReview(PDR)

CMLs measure concept maturity in the same way TRLs measure technology readiness

CML 1

CML 2

CML 3

CML 4

CML 5

CML 6

Cocktail Napkin

Initial Feasibility

Trade Space

Preferred DesignPoint withinTrade Space

Concept Baseline

Initial Design

F=ma

CML 7PrelimIntegrated B/L

Mission Definition Review

Step 1 Proposal




Name Cocktail Napkin

InitialFeasibility

Trade Space Point Design within Trade Space

Concept Baseline Initial Design Prelim Cost-Sched-Design

Integ B/L

CML 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organization PI needed for Earth and

Astrophysics concepts

Partnering options identified Pre-Project Manager & Pre-Project Scientist appointed (assigned); Implementation

mode trades performed

Co-I(s), rest of Science team & key partners identified

Project Manager identified; Roles & responsibilities of key

partners defined; Draft org chart developed

Remaining Core Project Team identified

Core project team in place

Schedule Documented to approximate half-

decade

Rough (or required) launch year and mission duration

documented

Variations and risks to development schedule and impacts to mission duration

documented

1-page top-level Gantt chart generated; Schedule compared

to Schedule Rules-of-Thumb guidelines

1-page Gantt Chart expanded to 1-month resolution with key deliverables, system reviews,

and critical path

Top-level Gantt Chart & draft IMS (with critical path and funded schedule reserve)

updated

Preliminary Integrated Master Schedule

produced

Cost Cost estimated by analogy (scatter-

plot model)

Cost estimates using Division 3X costing models generated (e.g., MC2, ROMMIT, CoMET,

Rapid Costing Tool, etc.) )

Cost sensitivities across trade space as a function of major

drivers determined

Model-based estimate iterated using models with subsystem

level functionality; Team X model-based cost estimate

A cost comparison table with at least 3 reconciled model-based estimates produced (e.g., Price, SEER, etc.); Input parameters

for each model identified

Cost estimate is a combination of grass roots and model-

based cost estimates

Signed-off grass roots cost estimated by

organizations responsible for

completing the work

Science Prime science, exploration & technology objectives

documented

Objectives quantified to levels that allow comparison with

previous investigations; Internal draft Level 1

requirements documented

Objectives broadened to include acceptable alternatives; Cost and risk sensitivities to varying levels

of science return quantified

End-to-end approach for achieving science documented; Distinction between baseline & threshold (floor) success criteria

documented;

Science Traceability Matrix produced

Level 2 & 3 driving requirements documented

Final PLRA submitted; Preliminary Level 2 &

3 requirements documented

Mission High level description of

mission documented

Rudimentary calculations & comparisons to mission

analogues to demonstrate feasibility documented

Alternative sets of mission architectures vs. science objectives, cost, & risk

documented & evaluated

Driving requirements, initial high-level scenarios, timelines and

operational modes documented

Mission operational phases documented to level needed for

illustrating how science objectives will be met

Expanded description of mission phases to illustrate critical s/c/ ground functions

documented

Key driving mission scenarios, timelines

and modes documented in detail

Spacecraft System

High-level description of

spacecraft documented

Key flight elements, design parameters and performance requirements documented; High-level comparison to

similar flight systems documented

Alternate flight system architectures and payloads vs.

science/mission objectives, cost and risk documented & evaluated

System architecture and instrument design described by

mech. config. drawings and block diagrams; recommended

heritage and descope options

Subsystem & instrument designs described;

instrument accommodations

Initial system and subsystem design documented

System andsubsystem design, open issues and

external I/F documented

Ground System

None at this time Mission ops approach documented; High-level

comparison to similar ground systems documented

Mission ops drivers and sensitivities documented

Ops concept documented; MOS/GDS/ operations support

architecture based on complexity of ops scenarios quantified

Major MOS responsibilities, block diagrams, facilities and I/Fs with science community

documented

MOS diagrams with proposed inheritance documented

MOS implementation w/ mission unique items documented

Technical Risks

What is unprecedented?

How to implement new functionality; Initial risk drivers

and developments documented

Mitigation/ development options for risks characterized and

documented

A 5 × 5 matrix with relevant risk drivers (include selected

mitigation/ development options) used

Selected mitigation/ development options into

baseline detailed; Strategies for control, allocation and release

of tech margins and cost reserves documented

Risk list expanded to include second tier subsystem and/or

instrument risks

Project risk management process

implemented

Summary CML MatrixNovember 2, 2009

Science Prime science,

exploration &

technology objectives

documented

Objectives quantified to levels that

allow comparison

with previous investigations; Internal draft

Level 1 requirements documented

Objectives broadened to

include acceptable

alternatives; Cost and risk sensitivities to

varying levels of science return

quantified

End-to-end approach for

achieving science

documented; Distinction

between baseline & threshold

(floor) success criteria

documented;

Science Traceability

Matrix produced

Level 2 & 3 driving


Final PLRA submitted; Preliminary Level 2 & 3


Science CML Matrix






Pre-Phase A and Formulation Phase Life Cycle (Updated 10.26.2009)

- CML tied to a life cycle milestone - CML that occurs between life cycle milestones


AO release

ProjectSelection

DraftAO

DownSelect

ProjectPhase

Step 2Proposal

Concept Development

Phase BPreliminary Design &

Technology Completion

Advanced Studies

PMSRPortfolio Gate

ConceptReview

BaselineCommitmentReview/Gate

Step 1

Proposal Implementation Risk Review

Step 1Proposal

PDR

KDP-C

CostPreview

ProposalReviews

PIs identify mission concepts

CML

CommitmentGate/Proposal

Submitted

Step 2

Initiate Pre-Project

Acquisition Strategy Meeting

SRR MDR

KDP-BScience Definition

Team Instrument

AOScience Advisory

Group KDP-C

PDR

Major Project

Milestones & Reviews

Phase AConcept & Technology

Development

Advanced Studies

ProjectPhase

Phase BPreliminary Design &

Technology Completion

CML

KDP-A

MCR

Pre-Phase AConcept Development

Mission Study Report

1 2 5 6 7 8

1 2 4 5 76 8

CSR Submitted

43

Site Visit

3




Application to New Frontiers Proposals – CML 5

Functional Area NF #1 NF #2 NF #3 NF #4

g g g g

g g y g

y g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

y y g g

g g g N/A

g g g g

g g g g

Mission Design g g g g

y g g g

g g g g

r g g g

y g g g

y g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

r g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g y

g g g y

g g g g

g g g g

r g g y

g g g g

g g g g

r y g y

Technology Readiness Levels

g g g g

g y g g

g g g g

r g g g

Master Equipment Lists g g g g

Technical Margins

* Margins can be relaxed down to PMSR levels if equivalent of 5 percentage points of scope contingency can be identified.(Note: New Fronters'09 teams should follow the margin strategy provided by the Program Office)

S/C Dry Mass (Mass growth allowance & margin)

g g g g

Power g g g y

Propellants g TBD g g

Data Storage y TBD g g

Attitude Control g TBD g g

Energy g g g y

Flight S/W (CPU timing & memory)

TBD r g g

Telecom g g g g

Major Trades g g g g

g g g g

g N/A g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

r g g g

Analytical Modeling & Simulations

g g g g

g g g g

r y g g

r g g g

Launch Vehicle g g g g

Planetary Protection r y g g

TBD N/A g N/A

r r y r

r r g r

g r g g

r r g y

N/A r g r

g g g g

y g g g

Organization, Partnering & Staffing

g g g g

TBD r y N/A

g g g g

g g g g

r g g g

Schedules g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

N/A g g N/A

g g g g

g g g N/A

g g g g

g g g g

r y g g

r g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g y g y

g y g y

g y g y

g y g g

r r y r

Subsystem Make-Buy Decisions

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

g g g g

Cost Risk Assessment g g g g

g g g g

r g g g

N/A g N/A

H/W Models, Testbeds & Spares

g g g g

oŹŹ Science enhancement options (SEO), if any (B-25)

Science Objectives, Driving Requirements & Descope Options

Schedule Margin

o Prelim V&V approach for new & enabling functions and integration approaches documented in VGs (B-39)

oŹŹ Scope contingency, descope options, technology fallback options (B-37)

oŹŹ Mission overview with description of mission phases and critical events (B-26, B-29, B-30)

oŹŹ Mission traceability matrix from mission functional requirements to mission design, spacecraft, ground system and operations requirements (B-27)

oŹŹ Single point failures

oŹŹ Selected redundancy

oŹŹ Documented high-level science observing profiles, timelines and modes defining instrument characteristics, S/C and ground activities adequate to see that science objectives will be met (B-19, B-22, B-35)

Criteria

oŹŹ Navigation, delta-V & propellant budgets for s/c (B-29, B-30, B-32))

oŹŹ Baseline science mission and success criteria (B-16) defined

oŹŹ Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)

oŹŹ End-to-end approach for achieving science objectives (B-16)

oŹŹ Draft Level 1 requirements (B-17)

oŹŹ Major driving requirements (drives costs or risks)

oŹŹ Science traceability matrix upward to national science objectives and downward through measurement requirements, instrument functional requirements and mission functional requirements (B-15, B-17)oŹŹ Demonstrate that instrumentation can meet measurement requirements (B-19)

oŹŹ Threshold science mission (B-18)

oŹŹ Instrument quantity, quality, continuity & latency (QQCL) requirements (B-21)

oŹŹ Command & Data Handling strategies (B-32)

oŹŹ Telecommunication & antenna coverage strategies (B-27, B-35)

oŹŹ 20 day launch period

Technical Risk Assessment & Mitigation

oŹŹ Mitigation for risk drivers detailed, costed and incorporated into baseline cost (B-43)

oŹŹ System architecture, mechanical configuration drawings, block diagrams (B-27, B-29, B-32, B-33)

oŹŹ Spacecraft system capabilities (e.g., lifetimes, pointing, etc.) (B-32)

oŹŹ Spacecraft system contingency & margins (B-34)

oŹŹ Subsystem & instrument designs to the appropriate assembly level (Represented by subsystem block diagrams and CAD drawings) (B-19. B-32)

oŹŹ Instrument descriptions & accommodations (B-20, B-27)

Ground System/Mission Operations System Design

oŹŹ MOS and tracking architectural options

oŹŹ MOS/ GDS sizing (based on ops complexity and tracking scenarios) (B-30, B-35)

oŹŹ Major MOS responsibilities (B-29)

oŹŹ Block diagrams, facilities & I/Fs with science community identified (B-35)

oŹŹ Approach for acquiring and returning critical events data (B-35)

oŹŹ Documented top technical risks using a 5x5 matrix

oŹŹ Assembly level (e.g. antenna, propellant tank, star tracker, etc) (B-67)

oŹŹ Management strategies for control, allocation & release of technical margins, cost reserves & schedule margin (B-43)

oŹŹ >= 35%*

oŹŹ >= 35%*

oŹŹ Completed technology evaluations (B-37)

oŹŹ TRL-5 with target of TRL-6 (B-37)

oŹŹ Rationale for stated TRL value (B-37)

oŹŹ Approach for maturing any new technology to TRL 6 by the time of the Project PDR (B-37)

oŹŹ >= 3 dB (for deep space); >=6 dB (for proximity links)

oŹŹ Results of architectural trade studies (B-36)

oŹŹ Trade space explored and rationale for selection of baseline (B-36)

oŹŹ >= TBD%*

oŹŹ >= TBD%*

oŹŹ >= TBD%*

oŹŹ >= 35%*

oŹŹ >= 100%

oŹŹ Obtain letter with tentative Planetary Protection Categorization (B-63)

Mission Assurance oŹŹ Define high-level reliability approach (e.g., redundancy, parts, testing, analysis, etc.) (B-36)

oŹŹ Approach for closing action items, hardware discrepancies & test anomalies (B-36)

oŹŹ Project Mgr (B-42), PSE, FSM and/or ISDM identified

oŹŹ Complete operations vs ground trades (B-36)

oŹŹ Complete subsystem level trades and justify selected baseline

oŹŹ Essential trade studies to be completed

o System Engineering approach documented in viewgraphs (B-36)

oŹŹ Identify unique analytical modeling and simulation requirements necessary for the mission to succeed (other than standard institutional modeling tools)

oŹŹ Key performance validation models

oŹŹ Identify development plan

oŹŹ Assess model reuse & new developments

oŹŹ Recommended launch vehicle, requirements & capabilities (B-27, B-31)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Spacecraft development (B-40)

Project Plans o Completed Phase A Plan prior to start of Step 2 (B-41)

o Reviewed list of questions in Project Managers Decisions Guidance & Policies template

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ All system reviews (B-40)

o Completed Business Decision Memorandum & Partner MOU (B-57 requires Letter of Commitment in the proposal)

o Complete NEPA ECLASS Worksheet (N/A for New Frontiers'09)

o Initial Technical Assistance Agreement has been written to cover Step 1 & Step 2 activities and is ready for submission (if any foreign partners)

o Defined science data release philosophy, archive responsibilities & delivery schedule (B-23)

oŹŹ Science Team identified (B-41)

oŹŹ Roles & responsibilities of key partners defined (B-42)

oŹŹ Draft org chart developed (B-41)

oŹŹ List proposed contributions and cooperative agreements (B-44)

oŹŹ One page Gantt Chart with system level activities, including:.

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Instrument developments (B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Science enhancement options (B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Ground system developments (B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Funded schedule reserves (B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Critical path (B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Technology development

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ I&T launch readiness (B-30, B-38, B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Hardware Models & simulators (B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ Long lead item procurements (B-40)

-ŹŹŹŹŹŹŹŹ 1 month resolution (B-40)

Inheritance oŹŹ Heritage options (B-19, B-36, B-69)

oŹŹ If claiming any inheritance benefit, validate against P4 algorithm at subsystem level (see Office 154 for help)

o Start of Implementation to ATLO 1.5 months/year

o ATLO to Launch Site 2.5 months/year

o Receipt at Launch Site to Launch 1.5 weeks/months

oŹŹ ESD/5X risk assessment

oŹŹ Generate strawman list of subsystem sources

oŹŹ Cost table (B-49)

oŹŹ Cost estimate comparison table for three types of models (e.g., Price, SEER, etc.) (per Cost Steering Group) (B-46)

oŹŹ Justification for recommended reserve allocations (B-47)

oŹŹ Follow JPL Standard WBS below Level 2

oŹŹ Identify input parameters used for each estimation method

oŹŹ Complete cost risk factors form and determine recommended reserve level based on cost risk subfactors algorithm

oŹŹ Preliminary reserve allocation by major WBS element (e.g. science, spacecraft, payload, etc)

Cost

oŹŹ Identify spares, testbeds (B-38), simulators and model baseline (prototype, ETM, protoflight, etc)

oŹŹ Description of cost risks (B-48)

(B-34 requires proposal teams to calculate the following eight margins, but does not specify thresholds.)

Spacecraft or Instrument System Design

Work Breakdown Structure

oŹŹ Follow NASA Standard WBS and Dictionary to Level 2 (B-49)

30-min interviews identify weaknesses needing attention

NF concepts in Feb 2009




Pre-Project Principles and Practices (P4)

• Define:– quantitative criteria for each concept element

– practices to be followed

• Imposes increasing rigor for later stages of life cycle

• Organized by CML

• Mix of guidelines and requirements

• Transitions seamlessly into Flight Project Practices and NPR 7120.5

• Available in hard copy or on-line




CMLs were used to Set Expectations


5.8 Technical Risk Assessment & Mitigation

Technical risk assessment involves identification, analysis and mitigation of risks. These risks need to be identified early and continuously re-evaluated.

Principles:

1. Unprecedented Capabilities (G) – The concept includes a list of unique and unprecedented mission capabilities outside JPL or NASA experience. (CML 1)

Rationale: Unprecedented capabilities represent potential risk areas that should be identified to inform the initial feasibility studies.

2. Implementing New Functionality (G) – The concept includes an identification of alternative approaches for implementing unprecedented new capabilities and or significant technology or engineering development (CML 2)

Rationale: Cannot conclude the concept is feasible without identifying backups for new technology and major engineering development .

Practices:

1. Early Identification of Top Risks (G) – Document top risks and potential mitigations. (CML 3)

Rationale: Understand the risk implications of each option being evaluated so they may be compared.

Note: for this example, text truncates at CML 3.

P4 Example




COST RISK SUBFACTORS COST RISK SUBFACTORSMISSION COMPLEXITY SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

1. Mission with multiple flight elements (P) 1. New system architecture (P)

2. Mission with multiple objectives 2. System architecture applied to new environment and technology3. Precision lander mission 3. Level 1 Requirements not well defined in formulation phase (P)4. Operation in harsh environments (P) 4. System with many ACS modes

SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT 5. System with many deployments1. Mission enabling spacecraft technology with TRL<5 (P) 6. Excessive reliability requirements (P)2. Mission critical instrument technology with TRL<5 7.Pointing control stability requirements beyond state of art 3. Lack of fallback option for mission critical technology CONTRACTOR CAPABILITIES MATCH4. Multiple interfaces affected by mission critical technology 1. Contractor inexperienced in mission application (P)

NEW SOFTWARE OR UNVALIDATED SOFTWARE INHERITANCE

2. Foreign Partner delivering hardware that is mission critical or on critical path

1. New software architecture 3. Not enough experienced personnel available. 2. New fault protection PROGRAMMATIC /COST &SCHEDULE MARGIN3. New software team 1. Less then 12-month Phase A/B4. Undocumented software inheritance without the same development team 2. Less than 30-month Phase C/D

TECHNICAL MARGINS 3. Schedule margins below guidelines (P)1. New design with multiple parameters not meeting the margin requirements specified in the design principles (P) 4. Multiple programmatic interfaces 2. Inherited hardware with any single technical parameter not meeting the technical margin requirements specified in the design principles MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION

1. Inadequate team and management experience (P)2. Insufficient workforce3. Risk mitigation plan not completed during formulation phase4. Selection of science instruments late in phase B (P)

(P) = Primary risk subfactors; All others (S) = Secondary risk subfactors. Required budget reserve % = 20% + 5(number of P's)% + 2(number of S's)%

Cost Risk Subfactors




Cost and Schedule Rules of Thumb




“Frontline” Web Portal






Example of Information on Website




Quad Chart

C (Final Design & Fabrication)



Formulation Support Team Services

• Planning templates

• Review agenda

• Concept maturity assessments

• Tailoring EVM and WBS

• Pre-Project Principles and Practices

• Gate Products

• Cost and Schedule “Rules of Thumb”

• Cost Risk Subfactors

• Schedule analysis

• Requirements “PIT” sessions


Associate Laboratory Director forProject Formulation & Strategy

150Strategic Planning & Formulation Office

151Strategic Analysis

Support Office

152Advanced ConceptsDevelopment Office

153Opportunity

Development Office

154Project Formulation

Support Office

155System Modeling and

Analysis Office

1521Advanced Design

Methods Office

1531Proposal Support

Office

- Mission architects- Tools- Team X- New methodologies

- Capture strategies

- Strategic funding support

- Proposal gates, standards, templates, reviews & processes

- Formulation Team support to Step 2 Proposals and Formulation Teams

- P4- Standards, tools,

templates, examples

- Frontline website

- Infrastructure support for modeling and simulation

JPL Laboratory Director

Associate Laboratory Director forProject Formulation & Strategy

150Strategic Planning & Formulation Office


Support Office


153Opportunity

Development Office


Support Office


Analysis Office

1521Advanced Design

Methods Office


Office


Support Office


Support Office


153Opportunity

Development Office


Support Office


Support Office


Analysis Office


Analysis Office

1521Advanced Design

Methods Office

1521Advanced Design

Methods Office


Office


Office

- Mission architects- Tools- Team X- New methodologies

- Capture strategies

- Strategic funding support

- Proposal gates, standards, templates, reviews & processes

- Formulation Team support to Step 2 Proposals and Formulation Teams

- P4- Standards, tools,

templates, examples

- Frontline website

- Infrastructure support for modeling and simulation

JPL Laboratory Director

Office of Strategic Planning & Project Formulation




OVERVIEWImportance of Science Involvement throughout the Life CycleNew Mission Concepts – How Developed, Sold and Kept Alive during Formulation

Pre-Project and Formulation Life Cycles

CAPTURE PLANNINGCapture Team Roles Competitive Solicitations, Gates and GuidelinesCapture Planning ToolkitExample of a Recent Project Capture Strategy

PI perspective on Working with JPL

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENTScience –Driven Concept DesignDesigning a Concept for SurvivalTechnology as a Driver for Concept DevelopmentPre-Project Principles and PracticesNurturing Innovation

Team XSystem Engineering with a Clean Sheet of PaperCOSTINGCost EstimatingCost and Schedule Risk AnalysisCost Risk SubfactorsProject SchedulingPROPOSALSProposal Lessons Learned

AO Proposal Development Toolkit

Lesson Learned from Recent Wins

FORMULATION PLANNINGInstrument ProjectsA Case Study on a “Planetary In-situ Science Mission that Looks Too Good to be True” Top Priorities for Newly Approved ProjectsPanel discussion on “Decisions Made during Early Formulation that had Major Impacts on Implementation –Good and Bad”

Mission Development Workshop


Working Together - We can Build Anything


Appendix


References

[2] AIAA Paper 2009-6824 presented at AIAA Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, California; "Measuring the Maturity of Robotic Planetary Mission Concepts", R.R. Wessen, M. Adler, C.J. Leising, B. Sherwood, Sep. 14-17, 2009

[1] IEEEAC Paper 1359 presented at 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conference; “JPL’s Approach for Helping Flight Project Managers Meet Today’s Management Challenges”, C. J. Leising, dated 12/22/03

[3] IEEEAC Paper 1318 to be presented at 2010 IEEE Aerospace conference “Recent Improvements in JPL’s Mission Formulation Process”, Charles J. Leising, Brent Sherwood, Dr. Mark Adler, Dr. Randii R. Wessen, Dr. Firouz M. Naderi, dated March 6, 2010


