1. Interstellar Medium Formation of Stars and Planets Planetary Science Galaxies and the Galactic Center SOFIA Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy SOFIA Program SE&I Lessons Learned NASA PM Challenge 9 February 2011 Presented by: Ron Ray - SOFIA Program SE&I Lead Laura Fobel - SOFIA Program CM & IT Lead Mike Brignola - Platform Project SE&I Lead
2. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the Systems Engineering solutions applied in the middle of the “troubled” SOFIA Program that helped it become successful 9 February 2011 PM Challenge
3. Table of Contents 9 February 2011 Background 4 SOFIA SE&I Approach 10 Requirements Management 29 Configuration Management 41 SOFIA SE&I Summary 55 PM Challenge
6. Major Components of SOFIA Observatory Science and Mission Operations Center 9 February 2011 PM Challenge Telescope Assembly Science Instruments Aircraft Operations Center
7.
8.
9. SOFIA Program Organization During Development 9 February 2011 PM Challenge DLR Program Manager Astrophysics Division Director Airframe Development and Test Engineering Airframe Development and Test Operations Program Executive Program Analyst Program Scientist Associate Administrator Science Mission Directorate SOFIA Observatory IPT Chaired by Program Chief Engineer Project Scientist Project Manager for Platform Project Project Manager for Science Early Science Mission Operations SOFIA Program Manager Deputy Program Manager Program Office includes Chief Engineer Office, SE&I, SMA, Program Control, and E/PO Telescope Assembly and SI Integration Integration IPT Software IPT Simulation IPT Science & Mission Ops Development Science Instrument Development
19. New SOFIA Life Cycle: Incremental Development SRR PDR CDR Δ ORD Δ PDR Δ CDR Δ CDR Δ CDR Flt Test Data Review ΔSAR ΔSAR ΔSAR CDS/CDDS/CECS MCCS Build #1 User Need A/C Modification TA/CECS ΔSAR Final Upgrades Ground Test Original Requirements Baseline Requirements Re-Baseline Δ CDR Status - Sept 2007 Instrumentation CECS Improvements Flt Test Data Review Ground Test Flt Test Data Review Ground Test Flt Test Data Review Ground Test Decomposition & Definition Integration & Verification Fab. & Assemble Partially Complete Cavity Environmental Control System (CECS) Decomposition & Definition Integration & Verification Fab. & Assemble A/C Modification Telescope Assembly Cavity Door Drive System (CDDS) Science Instruments (SI) Complete Remaining Decomposition & Definition Integration & Verification Fab. & Assemble Decomposition & Definition Integration & Verification Fab. & Assemble Cavity Door System (CDS) Decomposition & Definition Integration & Verification Fab. & Assemble Mission Control & Communications System (MCCS) Decomposition & Definition Integration & Verification Fab. & Assemble Status of 9 Science Instruments Varies Dependent on the Instrument ORD Closed Door Open Door TA Characterization & Shared Purpose Full Operational Capability Early Science Functional/Ferry Flt Test Data Review SAR Ground Test FRR Flt Test Data Review ΔSAR Ground Test FRR Final MCCS/CECS-LN2 Science Instruments MCCS for Early Science Early Science Instruments Δ SRR Δ SRR Δ SRR FRR FRR FRR ORR Δ SRR Segment 0 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Rework Required Δ PDR
44. The Delegation of CM Authority on SOFIA Observatory Change Control Board (OCCB) COTR Platform Project Control Board (PCB) USRA Program Level Project Level Element Level Contract Level Science Project Control Board (PCB) DSI MPC COTR L3 Com COTR Platform Project Office Engineering Science Project Office SOFIA Program Office SOFIA Observatory Integrated Product Team (SOLIPT) Program Management Board (PMB) Headquarters Science Mission Directorate Aircraft Operations Telescope Assembly Science Instruments Science Mission Ops DLR DLR
45.
46. Previous Organization Informal Reviews Formal Deliverables Restructured Organization Formal Deliverables Shift From Contractor Run / Government Oversight To Government Lead / Subcontractor Relationship MPC USRA L3 Com Project Office SOFIA Program Office DLR DFRC Platform Project Office ARC Science Project Office SOFIA Program Office Engineering Operations Telescope Assembly Science Instruments Science Mission Ops DLR COTR USRA MPC COTR L3 Com DSI COTR 9 February 2011 PM Challenge Informal Collaboration Improves Probability of Success DLR
SOFIA was once a “troubled Program”, threatened with cancelation
SOFIA will make observations that are impossible for other telescopes SOFIA costs a fraction compared to comparable Infrared space-based telescopes
More information on SOFIA can be found at: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/ http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/SOFIA/HTML/EM-0095-06.html
SOFIA has ~ 250 personnel supporting the development activities across the Program (not including the Science Instrument Teams)
This is the most important message of this presentation On SOFIA it was critical to fix the SE problems late in the Program
One independent reviews recommended that SOFIA stand down and fix the requirements deficiencies The Program felt a sense of urgency to show progress after the recent treat of cancellation The aircraft had been at Waco (L-3) for several years completing structural modifications and installation of the Telescope. As part of the transition back to a government led Program Dryden had already committed resources to help get the aircraft back to a flying status and back to NASA.
The SOFIA Program decided to accept more risk up front but use a mitigation strategy to drive it down over time
After transition SOFIA established a new set of Program level risks which included the “Lack of Requirements Definition” Each Project also established there own set of prioritized risks
SOFIA developed a Phased approach to design and build as a Risk reduction (see next chart). An evaluation of each major system provided there status at the point of Program transition. An important goal of the Phased approach was to obtain Science Data as soon as possible.
The Red “Vee” shows the original single life-cycle approach. The incremental approach allowed for science data to obtained much sooner and verified the Observatory had adequate performance.
Reworking Systems Engineering required significant planning. All Major SE functioned were revised and reestablished Fixing the requirements problem was a high priority
Illustrates the distribution of key Systems Engineering functions
Managers need a high level summary At transition many documents were obsolete and out of date Overtime more Program/Project Documents were identified (see later summary chart)
After Program transition there was often clashes between Scientist and Engineers on SOFIA. Overtime both sides learned to respect and appreciate each others role and responsibility.
This phrase is attributed to Sergey Gorshkov, the commander in chief of the Soviet Navy from 1956 to 1985.
There are many examples of Program failures due to Systems Engineering deficiencies, however, SE must be “value added” to be effective.
SOFIA made the “lack of complete and understood requirements” a Program Risk
The Requirements Manager maintains the corporate knowledge on requirements providing an essential focal point
On SOFIA "Agile Development“ entailed developing software iterations (“Engineering builds”) and getting continuous feedback to refine the product prior to final delivery
The new SOFIA technical team is now knowledgeable enough to effectively write new requirements and ICDs SE&I is the facilitator not the system expert
Adding high-level requirements late in the development process was very difficult and had far reaching effects.
Color codes were added to show Status of Specification documents
The SOFIA Specification Tree has evolved over time to represent the updated understanding of the SOFIA systems
The volume of CM activities requires a distributed process
SOFIA has ~ 250 personnel supporting the development activities across the Program (not including the Science Instrument Teams)
Collaboration is an important theme related to SOFIA recovery One CM board could not effectively collaborate with all the contractors
Even after Program transition, SOFIA has learned the hard way the problems that can result of not establishing a collaborative environment with its contractors
NASA normally does not track problems until after a product is formally delivered and accepted from the contractor SOFIA needed a technical Control Board to address technical integration issues that had independent authority of each Project
Using this to address record retention requirements when loading new documents
Metadata can provide important search information and ties to related processes
Without Management’s support SE has little chance of succeeding
This image shows a comparison of Jupiter as seen in a visible light view taken by astronomer Anthony Wesley (left) and in infrared wavelengths used by NASA's SOFIA telescope during its "first light" flight on May 26, 2010. The infrared view was taken by the FORCAST camera on SOFIA. The white stripe in the infrared image is a region of relatively transparent clouds through which the warm interior of Jupiter can be seen.
This “early release” image shows a comparison of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, SOFIA's view of the Orion star-formation region (on the right) with images acquired by ground-based telescopes in the visible and near-infrared wavelengths. Available on the DLR public website: http://www.dlr.de/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-1/117_read-28014/
