The document provides an integrated master schedule (IMS) for the Ares I-X flight test. It lists the IMS manager and project integration manager. The IMS details activities for various elements from 2008 to 2009, including delivery dates for components to the assembly facility and timelines for assembly, integration testing, and launch. The overall schedule aims to provide 60 days of margin and reduce rework through integrated planning.

1. Ares I-X - The Integrated Master Schedule
(IMS)
Keith “Indiana” Heitzman, IMS Manager
Bruce Askins, Project Integration
Manager
Used with Permission Launched October 28, 2009

2. Chance Encounter in The Summer of Lean
Name 5'08 6'08 7'08 8'08 9'08 10'08 11'08 12'08 1'09 2'09 3'09 4'09 5'09
Frustum Delivered to ARF 8/4/08 9/18/08
Deliver to ARF 9/2/08 9/30/08
Forward Skirt Extension Delivered to ARF 8/4/08 11/7/08
Deliver to ARF 7/28/08 10/9/08
Forward Skirt Delivered to ARF 8/4/08 10/20/08
Deliver to ARF 6/13/08 9/8/08
Forward Assembly Sub Assemble 9/18/08 1/30/09
Sub Assemble 9/30/08 11/28/08
Forward 5th Seg Sim Delivered to ARF 7/30/08 12/30/08
Deliver to ARF 9/11/08 10/9/08
Center 5th Seg Sim Delivered to ARF 7/30/08 12/30/08
Deliver to ARF 9/11/08 10/9/08
Aft 5th Seg Sim Delivered to ARF 7/30/08 12/30/08
FSAM Need
Deliver to ARF 7/24/08 10/9/08
5th Segment Simulator Sub Assemble 1/30/09
12/30/08
Sub Assemble 10/9/08 11/28/08
Pwr On Launch
Ground Operations Stack & Integrated Testing
4/15/09
Pwr On Launch
Stack & Integrated Testing
12/1/08 2/15/09 4/15/09
2

3. Ares I-X Flight Test Objectives
♦ Demonstrate control of a dynamically
similar, integrated Ares I/Orion, using
Ares I relevant ascent control algorithms
♦ Perform an in-flight separation/staging
event between a Ares I-similar First Stage
and a representative Upper Stage
♦ Demonstrate assembly and recovery of a
new Ares I-like First Stage element at KSC
♦ Demonstrate First Stage separation
sequencing, and quantify First Stage
atmospheric entry dynamics, and
parachute performance
♦ Characterize magnitude of integrated
vehicle roll torque throughout
First Stage flight
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7465.3

4. The Mission and The Name
The Mission Evolves The Name Evolves
♦Late 2005 – Team starts DFT
to take shape ADFT
♦Early 2006 – Scope and ADFT 1
Cost Creep
ADFT 0
♦Cancelled
Ares 1
♦May 2006 – Revived as a
relevant, cost & schedule Ares I-1
effective flight test
♦Apr 2007 – 1st Lean Event Ares I-X
~Feb 2007
& Project Re-org
4

5. First Lean Event
A Lean Team
gathered at
LaRC
5

6. IMS Before 1st Lean Event
♦ A confederation of Level 3, 4, & 5 elements
♦ Complex board structure
♦ The rhetoric of how to best integrate the IMS had to battle with
intra- and inter-center politics
• More energy expended to break through barriers than actually building
a good schedule
• Lack of trust
♦ No mission-level margin
♦ Not all elements working in Primavera
♦ Proper integration of the schedule was not going to happen.
♦ IMS integrations was done manually
♦ Many very talented people working hard to make it work
The First Lean Event was a pivotal point in schedule integration
6

7. 1st Lean Event Recommendations to CxCB
♦ Control Boards
• Current State – up to 10 boards (from contractor to CxP)
− Example: ~44 days (9 work weeks) of preparation and wait time for FTINU mod
• Ideal State – only value added boards
− Up to 4 boards (Contractor, Element, Engineering, and Project)
− FTINU mod could have been done in significantly less time (40 – 60 %)
• Benefits include increase in productivity and/or cost savings
♦ Rework Cycles (expected)
• Current State – high probability of rework
− Examples: FTINU, T-0 umbilical, vehicle stabilization, etc.
• Ideal State – eliminate rework cycles
− Integration up-front leads to ½ time reduction
− Eliminate rework (T-0 rework, vehicle stabilization, etc.)
♦ Schedule Margin
• Current State – None or risk of going over schedule
• Ideal State – Add ~45 to 60 business days of margin
− Provide incentives for contractors and civil service personnel
♦ Priorities
• Current State – unclear/everyone marching to a different drummer
• Ideal State – consistent

8. Ares I-X Org After First Lean Event
A Level 2 Project with IPT’s
Ares I-X Mission
Management Office
Mission Manager, Bob Ess
Safety & Mission Deputy, MSFC, Steve Davis
Deputy, KSC, Carol Scott Chief Engineers
Assurance CxP Liaison, TBD
Budget Analyst, JSC/TBD
Joe Brunty/MSFC
TBD/KSC
(S&MA) Project Integration, TBD
TBD Administrative Assistants
Support Staff
Systems Engineering
& Integration (SE&I)
Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)
Ground First Upper Stage Avionics Roll Control CM/LAS
Operations Stage Simulator and DFI System Simulator
(GO) (USS) (RoCS)
Jon Cowart/KSC Chris Calfee/MSFC Vince Bilardo/GRC Kevin Flynn/MSFC Ron Unger/MSFC Brian Beaton/LaRC

9. Ares I-X Organization at Launch
Safety & Mission Ares I-X Mission Chief Engineers
Assurance ( S& MA ) Management Office ( MMO )
Joe Brunty / MSFC
Dan Mullane / MSFC Vehicle CE
Bob Ess
Chief S&MA Officer
Mission Manager Shaun Green / KSC
Jeff Hamilton / MSFC Ground CE
Deputy Jon Cowart / KSC Steve Davis / MSFC
Deputy Deputy Dawn Stanley / MSFC
Angie Wise / MSFC Deputy Vehicle CE
Deputy Bruce Askins/ MSFC John Howell / MSFC Marshall Smith / LaRC
Project Integration Manager Business Manager SE&I Chief
Chris Duke / MSFC Systems Engineering
Business Manager Deputy
Project Integration (PI) & Integration (SE&I)
Bruce Askins / MSFC M. Smith / LaRC
Manager Chief
Ron Olsen / MSFC K. Detweiler / LaRC R. Barry Bryant / LaRC Henry Wright / LaRC
Deputy Lead Systems Engineer Deputy Chief Lead Engineer
Mike Bangham / MSFC Lanny Upton / MSFC Steve Richards / MSFC
Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) Deputy LSE Deputy LSE Deputy LSE
Ground CM/LAS
First Stage Avionics
Operations (GO) Simulator
Tassos Abadiotakis / KSC
Chris Calfee / MSFC Kevin Flynn / MSFC Jonathan Cruz / LaRC
Mike Chappell, Deputy Jay Nichols, Deputy Jeri Briscoe, Deputy Vacant, Deputy
Jim Bolton, Deputy
Ground Upper Stage Roll Control
Systems (GS) Simulator (USS) System (RoCS)
Mike Stelzer / KSC Vince Bilardo / GRC
Billy Stover, Deputy Bill Foster, Deputy Ron Unger / MSFC
Skip Williams, Deputy Jack Lekan, Deputy
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 9

10. The Summer of Lean
Goal: 60 Days Schedule Margin
♦ First Stage – Promontory, Utah
♦ Avionics – Denver, CO
♦ Roll Control – Huntsville, AL
♦ SE&I – Hampton, VA
♦ Upper Stage – Cleveland, OH
(attended by local participants and
facilitator only)
♦ Ground Ops/Ground Systems –
Cape Canaveral, FL
10

11. Summer of Love vs. Lean
Love Lean
11

12. Lean Teams
12

13. The Lean Machine
Developed a regular process for Schedule Lean Events
• Before Event
− Lots of pre-planning and working with facilitators
− Set schedule reduction goals for each area
− Scoped the event
− Indentify key participants Core Team – at all events
− Had local participants prepare current state • Leader – Steve Davis
• Facilitator – Mark Adrian
• At the Event – Monday Noon – Friday Noon • Integrator – Ron Olsen
− Kick-off and set the tone and pace • Scheduler – Keith Heitzman
− Informal report-outs mid-day & end of day • Strategic Participants
− Current state
− Ideal state
− Future state
− Incorporate IMS changes and verify savings ASAP
− Document key enablers for improving the process
− Final report out to champion
• After Event
− Incorporate changes to IMS and baseline
− Confirm that the detailed IMS matches the savings identified.
− Follow-up on enablers (tracked as action items for the project)
13

14. Primavera Pilot – It Works
♦ Primavera kicked-off by Constellation Program (CxP) in early
2006
♦ CxP wanted 3 projects to test Primavera
• Schedule – Primavera Project Management (PM)
• EVM – Primavera Cost Management (CM)
♦ Some growing pains early in implementation
• Primavera consultants provided to help get it going
• Most PM issues due to how it was set-up in ICE
− Deleted activities resurrected
− Printers disappeared
− Trouble developing reports
• CM issues seemed to be a combination of network and software issues
− CM was Abandoned
♦ Required training and a culture change
♦ The Schedule Tool (PM) worked as expected
♦ Had some issues with integration – KSC used their own
Primavera Database
A real-time integrated schedule would have been impossible without Primavera
14

15. Schedule Architecture & Reporting
Examples
2006 2007 2008 2009
O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J
STS-119
STS-125/127 STS-128 STS-130
SRR PDR CDR 1 CDR 2
Post Flight
Analysis
Design
Hardware Fabricate & Assemble
Design Impl & Mod HMF ORR MLP/VAB/CCC ORR
Ground Systems PAD ORR
SIL Testing FTINU
Fwd Assy & 5SS Egineering
Fwd Assy & 5SS Fabrication
14
FSAM Fwd Assy & 5SS Processing
30 05
04 RoCS
USS 29
CM/LAS
19
Motor Segments
01
5th Seg Sim Fwd Assy
VAB High Bay 4 - Offline Stacking
23
Aft Skirt
RPSF Processing
26
VAB High Bay 3 - MLP Stacking & Testing Roll to Pad
Pwr On
Mate Review 30
FTRR 21
Pad Ops
Ares I-X Flight
Aug 30, 2009
15

16. Schedule Architecture
♦ Used Internet-based schedule environment that allowed the
entire mission to work in one logically tied, integrated, and live
schedule
• Max - 15 primary schedulers with 9 in Primavera
• 9 companies
• 6 geographic locations
• 1 IMS covering entire scope of mission
♦ Schedules – 3 Levels of Detail:
• Detailed IMS (Primavera) – detailed integration (~2,800 lines)
• Summary IMS (Primavera) – logically tied to the Detailed IMS and is
where the MMO manages schedule (~600 lines)
• Executive Summary IMS - 1 page quick-look
♦ Two versions of Summary IMS:
• Baseline Version
• Current Version
♦ Summary IMS Developed by MMO from a Mission Perspective
Managed IMS to the Right Level
16

17. Example of Detailed IMS to Summary IMS
links
Activity ID Activity Nam e Start Fin ish
Flight Tes t Vehicle
Ares I-X F 08-Aug-06 A 29-Aug-08
A3000 ATVC K ic koff 08-Aug-06 A
A18120 ATVC DE T IO P W A Elec . Des ign 13-Sep-06 A 01-O ct-07
A3020 ATVC FPG A DET Design 18-Sep-06 A 01-O ct-07
A3030 ATVC Design - Breadboard 20-O ct-06 A 18-Apr-07 A
A18140 ATVC DE T Pwr Sply I/F (PS I) PW A Elec. D... 01-Nov-06 A 01-O ct-07
A18150 ATVC Chassis Design 02-Nov-06 A 12-O ct-07
A18160 ATVC DE T MIB Design 07-Nov-06 A 01-O ct-07
A3080 ATVC Design - Proto-board 11-Dec-06 A 24-Jul-07 A
A18130 ATVC S RR/PDR 13-Dec-06 A
A18170 ATVC P roto Bd Tes t (MSFC) 15-Jun-07 A
A18180 ATVC CDR 25-Jun-07 A 26-Jun-07 A
A18190 ATVC Det Board Build & Test 06-Aug-07 A 10-O ct-07
A18210 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr & S hip DE T 1 (Denver ... 04-O ct-07* 31-O ct-07
A18240 ATVC (DE T 1) SIL Unit Delivery 31-O ct-07
A18220 ATVC Q U Board Build & Test 05-Dec-07* 16-Jan-08
A18200 ATVC Flight Board Build & Test 05-Dec-07* 11-Feb-08
A18260 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr - Q ual 30-Jan-08* 07-Jul-08
A18230 ATVC Q ual Tes t Readines s Review (Q TRR) 01-Feb-08*
A18250 Q ual Test Start 01-Feb-08*
A18270 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr & S hip - DFT-1 02-May-08* 31-Jul-08
A18280 ATVC S ys Test, Intgr & S hip - DFT-1 Spare 28-May-08* 29-Aug-08
A18300 Q ual Test Completion 07-Jul-08
A18290 ATVC Flight Unit 1 (Ares I-X) Delivery 31-Jul-08
Ares I-X S mary Sche dule
Sum 13-Sep-06 A 30-Jul-08
A23830 ATVC Design, Fab, Tes t 13-Sep-06 A 30-Jul-08
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 17

18. Schedule Management and Baseline Control
Summary IMS
♦ There are three reasons to propose a revision to the Baseline
IMS to the XCB:
• When a controlled milestone slips and cannot be recovered
• When there is a major scope change (+/-) to the mission
• When the Baseline IMS and Current IMS have diverged to the point
that warrants a complete re-baselining
♦ Proposed Baseline Changes were analyzed by the Schedule
Working Group (SWG) and then brought to the XCB by the SWG
♦ The Current IMS was statused weekly.
• Variances quickly calculated
• Baseline variances more than 10 days are analyzed and documented.
• Any change to controlled milestones analyzed first
♦ Higher level control milestones such as the FTRR and Launch
Date taken to Level 2 - CxCB and Level 1 - DPMC
Discipline and Control managing Baseline and Current IMS
18

19. Sample IPT Status in Summary IMS (RoCS)
A ctivity ID A ctivity Nam e S tart Finish V ariance - V ariance -
B L P roject B L P roject
ARES I-X-SUM A s I-X Sum m ary Sch ed ule
Are 19 -Se p-07 A 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d
ARES I-X-SUM.S Su m ma ry 19 -Se p-07 A 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d
ARES I-X-SUM
I-X-SUM.S.4 0 Ro CS 19 -Se p-07 A 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d
AR ES I-X-S UM .S .2 Ro CS Rev iew s
.S.40 03 -D ec-07 A 12 -Se p-08 0d 0d
A8 27 0 CD R Boa rd - R oC S 03 -D ec-07 A 0d 0d
A8 46 0 Ro CS - Pre -Sh ip / Ac cep tan ce Re vie w 12 -Se p-08* 0d 0d
AR ES I-X-S UM .S .3 Hardw a re A cq uis ition
.S.40 19 -Se p-07 A 17 -Ja n-0 8 A 0d -6 d
A8 44 0 Un it 8 D isas sem bled (fo r en gin e) 19 -Se p-07 A 10 -O ct-07 A 0d 0d
A1 30 10 Un it 9 D isas sem bled (fo r en gin e/o ptio n) 14 -N ov-07 A 06 -D ec-07 A -2 d 2d
A1 30 20 Un it 1 0 D isa sse mb led (for e ng ine/option ) 18 -D ec-07 A 17 -Ja n-0 8 A -6 d -6 d
AR ES I-X-S UM .S .4 Ro CS Bu ild
.S.40 03 -M ar-08 12 -Au g-08 -8 1d -2 3d
A8 45 0 Ro CS Bu ild - Q ua l Un it 03 -M ar-08* 26 -M ar-08 -8 1d -3 6d
A8 33 0 Ro CS Bu ild - F ligh t U nit 1 17 -M ar-08* 10 -Ju n-0 8 -8 1d -8 2d
A8 34 0 Ro CS Bu ild - F ligh t U nit 2 17 -M ar-08* 10 -Ju n-0 8 -3 1d 21 d
A2 10 80 Ro CS Bu ild - F ligh t U nit 3 (S pa re Unit) 28 -M ay-08* 12 -Au g-08 -8 2d -2 3d
AR ES I-X-S UM .S .5 Tes t
.S.40 31 -M ar-08 19 -Se p-08 -3 8d -1 0d
A8 49 0 Ro CS Q ual Un it P yro Te st 31 -M ar-08* 04 -Ap r-0 8 -3 8d -3 8d
A8 50 0 Co ld Flow T est 31 -M ar-08* 04 -Ap r-0 8 -3 8d -3 8d
A8 52 0 Ro CS De liv er Q ua l U nit for Fit Ch eck at GR C 02 -Ju n-0 8* 0d 0d
A8 51 0 Ro CS - Acc eptanc e T es ting - F ligh t U nit (1) 11 -Ju n-0 8* 09 -Ju l-0 8 -8 2d -6 2d
A2 10 90 Ro CS - Acc eptanc e T es ting - F ligh t U nit (2) 11 -Ju n-0 8* 09 -Ju l-0 8 21 d 41 d
A2 11 00 Ro CS - Acc eptanc e T es ting - F ligh t U nit (3) 22 -Au g-08* 19 -Se p-08 -3 0d -1 0d
AR ES I-X-S UM .S .7 Delive r to SIL (LM - D en ver)
.S.40 05 -O ct-07 A 05 -O ct-07 A 0d 0d
A2 43 80 Sh ip/ De live r to Lo ck hee d for SIL Te stin g (RoC S Valve... 05 -O ct-07 A 0d 0d
AR ES I-X-S UM .S .6 Delive r to KS C
.S.40 22 -Se p-08 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d
A8 53 0 Ro CS Arriv al a t K SC (Direc tly to H M F) 22 -Se p-08* 0d 0d
A8 56 0 Ro CS - RoC S Unlo ad ing / R ece ivin g / In spe ctio n 23 -Se p-08 23 -Se p-08 0d 0d
19

20. Sample Stoplight Chart
20

21. Communicating Total Float – Sample 1
Ares I-X 2008 2009
Total Float Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Sub-Assembly
Ground Ops High Bay 4 1/12
10/3
Stack and Test
System Integration
Float to Stack High Bay 3
Pad
27 Days
RoCS RoCS Arrives at KSC
Float to
27 Days
Upper Stage USS Arrives at KSC
14 Days
FTINU
CM/LAS CM/LAS Arrives at KSC
120 Days
RSRM Arrives at KSC
First Stage 27 Days Mission
Fwd Assy Delivery ARF to VAB 12 Days
0 Days
Float
5th Seg Simulator Delivery ARF to VAB
Aft Skirt Delivery ARF to RPSF
RPSF
Ground Stack and
Integrated
21 Days
Operations Testing
21 Days
Ready For FTINU Apr 15
Avionics FSAM Arrives at KSC 20 Days
Flt FTINU Arrives at KSC
Ready To Launch
3/27
21

22. Similarities: A Development Flight Test to a
Development IMS
♦ Needed to stand up an IMS before CxP had established
processes
♦ Scope creep – The IMS had to resist or adopt change much
like the rocket
• Rocket
− Added requirements from CxP
− Sensor additions/deletions
− Established processes from Centers
− Requests to “try out” new software tools or processes
• IMS
− CxP wanted to try new processes out on us or even impose requirements
− Primavera Pilot wanted us to use more of the tools than we needed
− Centers had process that may have been incongruent with needs of I-X
♦ Had to be successful – but still learn something
A proving ground that had to be successful
22

23. Monte Carlo – Use With Caution
♦ Started using Monte Carlo a few months after CDR
♦ Can approach diminishing returns – K.I.S.S.
• Use a separate, high level network (no open ends, no constraints)
• Keep it simple and do not burden the whole team
• Do analysis in small team, close to Project Manager
♦ Focus on Top Critical Paths & Risky Paths
♦ Results – May learn more in the journey than the destination
♦ Attack the tasks with most uncertainty (Tornado Chart)
• Success Story – Integrated Testing  Duration 2 wks to 8 wks
a e au c
0.22 1.0
0.20 0.9
Cumulative Probability
0.17 0.8
0.7
Garbage In  Garbage Out
Frequency
0.15
0.6
0.13
0.5
0.10
0.08
0.4
0.3
It’s a tool and not an exact science
0.05 0.2
0.03 0.1
Thu 9/24/09 Mon 10/12/09 Sun 11/1/09
Completion Date
23

24. Raw Data
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N
CxCB
ATP SRR PDR CDR 1 Launch
1st Baseline
CxCB
ATP SRR PDR CDR 1 CDR 2 Launch
Actual
♦ 18% schedule growth after CxP Authorization to Proceed
♦ Managed to the 4/15 Launch date for 2 years
• Started with 0 Margin
24

25. IMS – Good Practices
♦ The IMS is owned by the Team – not the schedulers
♦ Schedulers should have a technical background and
engineers should understand scheduling
♦ Manage the margin & float at as high a level as possible
• Discourage use of margin at lower levels
♦ Lean Events (Kaizens) are terrific tools
• Use early and often
• Do it right – don’t cheat yourself
♦ Manage using Total Float Paths (requires a healthy schedule)
♦ Start using Monte Carlo Analysis just before CDR
• It is just a tool and not an exact science
♦ Fancy software does not integrate a schedule
• Enterprise tools are great when used by a good schedule team
BUT… Don’t forget how important Human Factors & Org Structure is to
the IMS
25

26. More Than Good Scheduling
Human
Org Factors
Structure
Good
Schedule
Practices
Effective IMS
26

27. Thanks to the Ares I-X Schedulers
Amy McQuown Nick Kindred
Brian Schmid Paul Mc Masters
Chris Feagan Paul Kuhlken
Dan Healey Sonny Wood
Doug Pulling Steve McGraw
Jackie Cochran Susie Johnston
Kathy Drummond Tracy Kamm
Karen Russell Tammy Donaldson
Lloyd Johnson Viren Harris
Melanie Hawkins
27

28. Big Shoes
28

29. 29