Effective Mission Management on Expendable Launch Systems

1
Effective Mission Management on Expendable Launch
Systems

• SpaceOps 2006
• Rome, Italy
• 19-23 June 2006

John L. Buzzatto Scitor Corporation
2
Agenda

• Introduction
• Building an Effective Mission Management Program
• Phased Mission Management Execution
• Independent Reviews Readiness Execution
• Summation and Final Thoughts

3
Introduction

• Mission Management is a complex and diverse set
  of tasks and functions integrating all the
  elements of the launch vehicle,
  satellite/payload, ground, and mission
• This paper integrates and utilizes a blend of the
  best United States Department of Defense
  (DoD)/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
  Mission Management practices
• The end product will be a generic set of
  activities that could be tailored for Mission
  Management of any near earth/interplanetary space
  mission
• The overall Mission Management Program will be
  developed using the National Security Space (NSS)
  Acquisition Policy 03-01 milestones as benchmarks
  planning and executing the mission management
  program functions

4
Introduction

• The program begins during the concept
  exploration phase and evolves during each program
  phase efforts bridge connect activities
  during each successive phase
• Approaches and methodology needed are similar for
  manned or unmanned, earth orbit or beyond
  differences lie in level of detail required
  needed to satisfy interface requirements
• The bible for this effort is the overall
  comprehensive mission management plan that lays
  out the roadmap and includes sections on
  entry/exit criteria for each phase, expected
  resources needed, initial budget estimates, and
  projected schedule milestones
• The mission management process is the glue
  conscience of the program that incrementally
  builds confidence and reduces risk in the system
  interfaces as the program matures
• This mission management effort is truly a
  program within a program that employs sound
  management principals to meet programmatic goals
  and enhance success

5
Introduction
6
Building and Effective Mission Management Program
(MMP)

• Mission Management is defined as a program
  element that has management responsibility of all
  the interfaces between the launch vehicle (LV),
  ground, and satellite (SV) /payload systems from
  program inception through mission operations
• This all-encompassing function is a major part of
  both the launch and satellite/payload program
  offices since it must meet and satisfy both the
  launch vehicle and satellite/payload requirements
• Air Force programs split this function between
  the LV and SV programs
• NRO has chartered a single organization to manage
  both the LV /SV interfaces
• The approach for this manuscript builds upon both
  approaches and increases the scope and
  responsibilities of the MMP
• A comprehensive mission management plan is
  developed that lays out the management structure,
  processes, tasks, resources, and budget started
  pre-acquisition phase and evolves over time

7
Building and Effective Mission Management Program
(MMP)

• The Mission Management Plan is a sole source
  document for managing and controlling all the
  program elements that flow from the SV/payload to
  the launch and ground systems. It is
• Class I document placed on the SV, launch, and
  ground systems contracts with interdependencies
• Umbrella instrument for mediating and resolving
  conflicts between the multiple agencies with
  separate contracts
• Five main sections organizational roles
  responsibilities, acquisition/contract
  strategies, resource allocations for the various
  tasks, key schedule milestones that must be
  accomplished by the Key Decision Points (KDPs)
• Budget process includes a bottoms up process
  that realistically estimates the efforts needed
  and includes an additional 10 reserve to
  mitigate known/unknown risks early in the program
• It includes all the key program documents that
  pertain to the mission interface
• Mission Management Team (MMT) is the responsible
  organization

8
Building an Effective Mission Management Program
NSS Acquisition Policy Milestones Functions
9
Building and Effective Mission Management Program
(MMP)

• The second critical piece of the MMP is the
  contract arrangements utilized between the launch
  vehicle, SV/payload, and ground systems elements
  
• Initial activity that defines the interface and
  accomplishes mission trades is extremely dynamic
  and cannot be managed in a vacuum
• Flexible and timely in meeting the challenges as
  the systems design evolves and architectural
  trades are made
• Historically, the most effective Mission
  Management contract structure type has been the
  cost-plus, award fee (CPAF) contract
• Provides the contractors a mechanism for working
  closely together to identify corrective actions
  and resolve significant issues early
• A structured management organization is
  encouraged to meet the challenges of the complex
  interface between systems
• The contractors are rewarded by use of the award
  fee process for their ability to maintain cost,
  schedule, and technical baselines

10
Building and Effective Mission Management Program
(MMP)

• The contract content includes interface tasks
  analyses, technology insertion, mission design,
  mission unique development/test, verification,
  mission readiness, mission operations, and
  special activities
• The magnitude of what gets included depends on
  whether a first time mission, recurring, similar
  to past missions, science or national security
  oriented
• Long-lead hardware procurement
• Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) should permit
  easy turn on of new tasks to allow the contractor
  to meet requirements with innovative, cost
  effective solutions
• Can be in a single contract or multiple contracts
  based on the number of contractors utilized
• Special CLINs for program management
  responsibilities including systems integration
  and engineering (SIE) practices
• Includes independent verification activities
  including tool development

11
Building an Effective Mission Management Program
12
Building and Effective Mission Management Program
(MMP)

• The last piece of the MMP is a structured
  hierarchy of interface documentation
• Interface requirements documents (for every
  interface)
• System Engineering Plan (SEMP) and Risk
  Management Plan (RMP) that need to be rigorously
  applied across the interface for both flight and
  ground systems
• Mission design and technical requirements
  documents allow early planning of mission
  variables and help anchor the critical technical
  parameters for meticulously tracking through the
  life cycle
• Other mission assurance documents (e.g. mission
  readiness, verification, and
• Special requirements security, safety, and
  communications

13
Phased Mission Management Execution

• The MMP structure is simplified into four phases
  
• Concept exploration/development
• Launch /satellite vehicle hardware development
• Launch service which goes through launch
• On orbit mission operations
• Each phase has unique activities that support
  building confidence incrementally for the mission
  interface between launch and satellite systems
  and satellite to mission ground station to
  minimize risk early in the process
• These efforts require discipline and constant
  management attention due to the length of time
  (6-9 years) needed to bring satellites
  payloads from concept to launch
• Each phase includes a thorough systems review
  process and a robust lessons learned program

14
Phased Mission Management Execution
15
Phased Mission Management Execution

• The concept exploration/development accomplishes
• Concept trades to meet operational requirements,
  new technologies, and architectural needs
• All the necessary mission interface trades should
  be accomplished by the completion of this phase
• Ground infrastructure requirements and initial
  interfaces need defined
• Initial identification of potential launch
  systems occurs through analysis of performance,
  volume, and other mission sensitivities
• Identifying launch hardware and ground systems
  upgrades/new development early during the concept
  exploration/development phase is critical so cost
  and schedule impacts can be factored into the
  program costs
• The MMT supports the goal of this phase to have
  all interfaces defined, documented, and capable
  of selecting the most compatible SV/payload design

16
Phased Mission Management Execution

• The second phase is when LV/SV payload
  development designs become hardware
• Hardware design matures and the contractors
  prepare for the detailed reviews SRR, PDR, and
  CDR for their systems
• In parallel, the MMT uses the design data to
  construct a preliminary mission definition, begin
  early analyses and mission unique design work for
  presentation during the hardware design reviews
• The MMT leads the interface and risk management
  efforts by controlling requirements creep and
  leading the development of viable options to
  mitigate significant risk areas -- the honest
  broker
• The MMT must control the interface between the LV
  and SV/payload communities and have the authority
  to recommend options that minimize impacts to all
  interfaces

17
Phased Mission Management Execution

• The MMT needs to lead a concise decision process
  that minimizes the time allocated for design
  through the development and launch service phases
  
• Seven guiding management principals (with
  comments one) from Applied Physics Lab (APL)
  and tailored to the particular program
• Limit the schedule from start to launch (allocate
  the proper amount of time so design doesnt go on
  forever and drive cost and schedule)
• Establish a small, experienced technical team
  (MMT scoped based on schedule technical
  complexity)
• Design the SV, LV, and ground interfaces to cost
  (based on understanding both mission requirements
  and derived mission requirements)
• Use the lead engineer method for each subsystem
  (this is my approach for the MMT minimizes
  documentation and provides ownership of the
  interface)

18
Phased Mission Management Execution

• Design in reliability and redundancy at the
  outset (my approach for the MMT to have a
  rigorous management attention from the beginning
  of development)
• Integrate the product assurance engineer into the
  program (my approach is that this is mission
  assurance and part of the MMT responsibility)
• Assign a single agency manager to interface with
  the development team (my approach is this single
  organization, MMT, interfaces with all the
  development teams and is contracted and
  independent of each)
• Added an 8th the interface organization, MMT,
  must have the contract leverage teeth to make
  the management decision process work
• MMT plans executes a Mission Integration
  Readiness Review (MIRR) for the mission
  interfaces -- focus is on requirements flow
  down/traceability, preliminary analyses results,
  mission unique hardware and initial operations
  concepts

19
Phased Mission Management Execution

• The third phase is the launch service phase where
  all the elements come together
• Final mission integration, which takes from 1-2
  years, is a comprehensive endeavor that includes
• Final verification loads cycle
• Mission trajectory analysis
• Final mission targeting
• Launch placards/constraints
• Other engineering analyses for verifying launch
  and ascent environments for the specific mission
  parameters
• The MMTs management of these tasks and data
  transfer are critical to final mission
  certification and timely resolution of
  discrepancies in the results ensures defined
  criteria exists and tracks need dates

20
Phased Mission Management Execution

• A delta MIRR should occur to review the changes
  from the initial review and assess readiness to
  proceed into launch and on orbit activities
• A formalized mission management working group
  structure by functional area is the most common
  approach for managing the technical interface and
  maintaining configuration control
• The makeup of the MMT working groups is a
  composition of tiered management and technical
  expertise with representatives from the multiple
  interface communities
• One key aspect is the systems engineering risk
  tracking function that covers all the mission
  interfaces started during the concept
  exploration phase

21
Phased Mission Management Execution

• The MMT focuses on
• Ensuring system compatibility with all interfaces
• Functional requirements are satisfied
• Tracing functional performance requirements
  through each interface specification
• Completing verification of each requirement
• Identifying lessons learned for future
  incorporation
• The MMT follows all LV/SV production and test
  schedules, including critical path activities to
  hardware shipment to the launch base
• The MMT follows final processing, verification,
  and integrated test of the LV/SV systems to
  ensure compliance with all interface
  requirements, including those for ground systems
  
• After launch, the mission management focus shifts
  from interface management responsibilities to
  meeting on-orbit SV/payload checkout and mission
  operations from the Mission Control Center

22
Phased Mission Management Execution
23
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• The key point here is that the physical,
  analytical, and functional interfaces between the
  launch and satellite systems must have a champion
  who ensures total compatibility and compliance
  with all mission requirements
• The MMT has several key roles in support of
  independent reviews
• Lead the independent review of interfaces that
  are new or cant be easily verified
  accomplished incrementally from concept
  exploration/development phase and completed as
  part of certification
• The other critical role is ensuring an
  independent review of all the mission interfaces
  is successfully accomplished
• The MMT should have contract responsibility for
  managing the external IVV process that carefully
  checks the critical analytical analyses performed
  by the LV and SV/payload community

24
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• External IVV has historically been difficult to
  scope and manage with many different
  organizations responsible for different pieces of
  the mission With MMT management,
• it increases the independence of the results and
  allows a more integrated assessment of all
  independent analyses on both sides of the
  interface and mission
• It allows early selection of a contractor team in
  the LV/SV development phase to enable tool and
  process development to occur prior to the start
  of early mission integration
• The MMT should also be responsible for chartering
  and managing the Independent Review Team (IRT)
  that becomes a second or third set of eyes for
  assessing risk on the LV, LV/SV interface, ground
  segment, and SV/payload elements
• The team has a small number of senior experts
  (reach back) and subject matter experts (SME)
  that focus on significant mission risks that
  include first time mission items

25
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• The IRT begins during the LV/SV development phase
  and continues through mission certification
• The team makeup changes with the initial focus on
  design adequacy, mission assumptions, and
  non-recurring development activities
• This effort also includes qualification testing
  and preliminary analyses results
• The second focus occurs during the launch service
  phase with emphasis on non-conformances, test
  failures, and review of final mission analyses
  and ends with mission certification

26
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• The first piece of the mission readiness process
  is the pre-launch rehearsals for the launch and
  MCC and related ground segments
• The MMT plans and leads the execution of major
  milestones during the mission readiness process.
  This includes
• pre-launch rehearsals for the launch and MCC and
  other related ground segments
• The multi-step process that begins with
  individual training, team training for the
  launch, ground, and satellite/payload groups, and
  finally integrated team rehearsals
• It begins during LV/SV development at the
  individual training level with material
  development and individual training plans
• During the launch service phase team and
  integrated training become critical for
  validating pre-launch and early mission
  operations capabilities

27
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• The number of pre-launch rehearsals required
  varies with mission complexity and number of
  organizations participating
• The ground segment, MCC, has its own set of
  training and rehearsals since in most cases they
  are already supporting other missions on a daily
  basis and must plan around these activities
• The MMT is key to ensuring all events are
  scripted with realistic scenarios (pre-launch and
  during the mission phase) that stress the teams
  and practice execution of mission procedures and
  checklists
• information flow and decision-making processes
  are thoroughly scrutinized
• the MMT captures lessons learned and incorporates
  changes into follow on events

28
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• The second piece of the readiness process is the
  reviews held at key program milestones
• The early readiness activities are tied to the
  design review process and acquisition milestones
  criteria that are accomplished during the
  pre-acquisition and systems acquisition phases
• Prior to the LV/SV CDR milestone the MMT plans
  and leads the initial MIRR to accomplish the
  following topics
• Baseline the LV/SV interface requirements
  (highlight requirements that are still not agreed
  to)
• Trace each requirement through verification
  approach (mission verification matrix)
• Review preliminary analyses results/issues
• Status mission design to date
• Review mission unique hardware and software
  development progress

29
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• Status mission documentation (e.g. Concept of
  Operations, MOP, Launch Constraints Document
  (LCD), etc)
• Mission ground systems development (includes MCC
  ground stations)
• Mission integration milestones
• Mission training rehearsals
• Integrated LV/SV payload launch base processing
  and testing
• Special mission requirements (i.e. safety,
  security, transportation, etc.)
• Significant mission risks
• The results of this review become the mission
  baseline prior to beginning the launch service
  mission integration tasks that finalize all the
  mission parameters

30
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution
31
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution

• The MMT plans and supports the incremental
  readiness process that occurs during the LV/SV
  development and launch service phases
• The mission readiness reviews are specific to the
  launch service phase and lead up to mission
  certification
• The reviews are a blend of LV/SV hardware
  software, mission integration, ground segment
  (MCC), and launch base readiness
• occur at appropriate readiness milestones prior
  to launch
• ensure readiness for launch and mission
  operations

32
Independent Reviews Readiness Execution
33
Summation and Final Thoughts

• A comprehensive and consistent mission management
  effort through the mission life cycle is
  mandatory for maximizing the success of any
  complex space mission
• The Mission Management Program outlined in this
  paper is a model for ensuring a standard,
  synergistic approach for interface management is
  utilized based on years of heritage experience
• A similar approach can be applied to both near
  earth and beyond missions

IF IMPLEMENTED DURINIG PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, A
THOROUGH AND EFFECTIVE MISSION MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM CAN BE PLANNED AND EXECUTED
34
References

• Documents
• 1 Space Launch Broad Area Review (BAR) Final
  Report, October 1999
• 2 Independent Assessment team (IAT) on Mission
  Success Briefing, 24 March 2000
• 3 Boeing Mission Assurance Review (MAR) Briefing,
  24 March 2000
• Proceedings
• 4 Satellite Failure Causes Communications
  Blackout, Justin Ray, Spaceflight Now, 20 August
  2000
• 5 A Successful Strategy for Satellite
  Development and test, Bill Tosney and Steve
  Pavlica, Crosslink, Fall 2005
• 6 Commercial Communications Satellite Bus
  Reliability Analysis, Frost Sullivan, August
  2004