1. National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
Increasing the Robustness
of Flight Project Concepts
Project Manager Challenge
C.J. Leising
B. Sherwood
Dr. M. Adler
Dr. R. Wessen
Dr. F. Naderi
February 9, 2010
Copyright 2009 California
Institute of Technology.
Government sponsorship
acknowledged.
Used with permission

2. National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
“A Tale of Two Cities”

3. National Aeronautics and
Current Environment -
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Concept Development
Technology
Pasadena, California
• 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 PM Challenge 3

4. Pre-Phase A and Formulation Phase Life Cycle
(Updated 10.26.2009)
Advanced Concept Step 1 Step 2 Phase B
Project Preliminary Design and
Phase Studies Development Proposal Proposal
Technology Completion
• Identify & Develop New • Develop Innovative • Develop Step 1 • Develop Step 2 Concept Study • Validate • Develop Final Sys Reqts
Concepts Mission Concepts for Proposal, With Report, With Final Mission & Implementation • Develop Prelim Design
• Perform Advanced Studies Rapid Proposal Response Recommended Sci Reqts, S/C Concept, Approach • Develop Baseline Project
• Assess Sci Drivers • Identify Driving Level 1 Reqts, Technology Assessment, Cost • Develop Prelim Plan and PIP
• Identify Technology Options Requirements S/C Concept, & Schedule Project Plan & • Develop Phase C/D Plan
• Perform Technology Cost & Sched • Assemble Project Team PIP
Evaluation
Draft AO Down Site Project
AO release Select Visit Selection KDP-C
Major PIs identify mission concepts Step 1 Step 2
Project
Gates & Concept Portfolio Cost Baseline Commitment Proposal Proposal CSR
Reviews Review Gate Preview
Commitment
Review/Gate
Gate/Proposal Implementation Reviews
Submitted Risk Review Submitted PMSR PDR
Advanced Studies Pre-Phase A Phase A Phase B
Project Concept Development Concept & Technology Preliminary Design and
Phase Development Technology Completion
• Identify & Develop New • Develop Draft Mission Reqts • Develop Prelim Sys Reqts • Develop Final Sys Reqts
Concepts • Perform Mission and S/C Studies and • Complete Technology Assessment • Develop Prelim Mission and S/C Design
• Perform Advanced Studies Technology Evaluation • Baseline Mission and S/C Concepts • Develop Baseline Project Plan & PIP
• Assess Sci Drivers • Propose Baseline Mission Concept • Develop Prelim Project Plan, PIP and & • Develop Phase C/D Plan
• Identify Technology Options • Develop Phase A Plan Final Technology Development Plan • Demonstrate Technology Form/Fit/Function
• Develop Phase B Plan
• Assemble Project Team
Science Advisory Initiate Science Instrument Acquisition
Group Pre-Project Definition KDP-A AO Strategy Meeting KDP-B KDP-C
Team
Major
Project
Milestones Mission
& Reviews Study Report MCR SRR MDR PDR
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 4

5. National Aeronautics
and
Review Detail
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
Project Advanced Concept Step 1 Step 2
Phase Studies Development Proposal Proposal
Draft AO Down
AO Release Select
PI’s identify
mission
Major concepts Step 1 Step 2
Project
Gates &
Reviews Concept Portfolio Cost Baseline Commitment Proposal
Review Gate Preview Commitment Gate/Proposal Implementation
Review/Gate Submitted Risk Review
CML 1 2 3 4 5
- CML tied to a life cycle milestone - CML that occurs between life cycle milestones
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 5

6. National Aeronautics and
Additional Improvements and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of
Innovations
Technology
Pasadena, California
• 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
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 6

7. National Aeronautics
Absent: a Common Language for
and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
Concepts
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
• 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
Trades Alternatives and Selections 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
How
Assists (GAs). SEP+GAs warrants further
consideration, but new optimized trajectory
search is needed.
Capture into Saturn system Titan aerocapture Propulsive capture Aerogravity assist saves mass and also saves at
(aerogravity assist) least several months in pumpdown .
Uranus Satellites
Pump-down mission design Enceladus/Titan Multiple moon GAs Multiple moon REP+GAs Other options found to be too high delta-V or
GAs only only propulsively- flight time.
mature is
leveraged GAs
RPS type MMRTG ARPS (advanced ARPS specific power higher, efficiency much
Interior
higher (less Pu needed). Guidelines allowed Interior
Stirling) Magnetic Energetic Surface Surface
Structure
ARPS as acceptable and available option for Atmosphere Structure
Field Particles Structure Composition
(Gravity Field) (Gravity Field)
flagship studies.
Orbiter implementation Enceladus Orbiter Low-Energy High-Energy
Enceladus Multiple- Enceladus Multiple-
Flyby (Saturn Flyby (Saturn
Orbiter) Orbiter) Lg. Circ. Vertical Release of
your
Priority placed on having in-situ measurements Sm. Conv. Structure Internal Heat
Lander/Probe implementation Fly-Through Rough Landers Soft Landers Orbi-Landers
Probes and from surface.
Impactors
Number of landers None One Three (regional Five (larger-scale
distribution) distribution and/or Fly-By
redundancy)
Lander lifetime/duration Short-lived (~2 Long-lived (~1 year
concept?
weeks on primary on RPS)
battery or fuel cell) Polar Orbiter
Lander mobility type Stationary Locally mobile (~10 Regionally mobile Globally mobile Considered propulsive "hopper" type concepts
km) (~100 km) for soft landers.
Equatorial
Orbiter
Acceptable and
evaluated in this
Legend: study Atm. Probe
Acceptable but not
evaluated in this
study
Lander
Unacceptable
A Enceladus orbiter with multiple
B Enceladus orbiter with multiple
D Enceladus orbiter becoming a
(flybys) with multiple short-lived
Relative Goal Science Value
E Enceladus orbiter with single
(flybys) with a single long-lived
Mass Comparison Summary - Launch Mass and Sub-Elements
G High energy Saturn orbiter
H Low energy Saturn orbiter
F Low energy Saturn orbiter
Free-Flying
I Low energy Saturn orbiter
C Enceladus orbiter alone
Instruments
6,000
8000
short lived landers
long-lived landers
long-lived lander
long-lived lander
Delta IV-Heavy C3=16 km^2/s^2
(flybys) alone
(flybys) alone
7000 5,000
Cassini
landers
lander
6000
4,000
Science Goals, Enceladus Mission Science Assessment - 0-10, 10 best
5000 Atlas 551 C3=16 km^2/s^2
$FY06M
Mass (kg)
1. What is the heat source, what drives the plume 10 6 7 4 5 5 2 1 3 6 1
3,000 TMC
4000
2.Lander(s) the plume production rate, and does it vary
What is 8 8 9 8 9 9 7 3 8 7 3
3000 3.Orbiter are the effects of the plume on the structure and
What 2,000
composition of Enceladus? 5 8 9 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2
2000 4.Aerocapturethe interaction effects of the plume on the
What are System
Cruise/Prop Stage
Saturnian system 3 7 7 7 6 6 8 7 8 7 1,000
7
1000
5. Does the composition and/or existence of the plume give -
0 us clues to the origin and evolution of the solar system 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 3 Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G Option H Option I
A B C D E F G H I 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
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 7

8. What’s in a Mission
National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
Concept?
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
Management
Elements
Engineering
Elements
Proposal
Concepts are composed of engineering and management elements
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 8

9. National Aeronautics
and
Elements of a Concept
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
Engineering Elements Management Elements
• Mission Objectives & Requirements • Acquisition Approach
• Mission Design • Project Organization
• Spacecraft System Design • Schedules & Margins
• Ground System Design • Cost, Cost Risks & Reserves
• Technical Risk Assessment & Mitigation • Implementation Plans
• Technical Maturity • Subsystem Make-Buy
• Inheritance • Work Breakdown Structure
• Master Equipment List • Testbeds, Models & Spares
• Technical Margins • Coordinated Cost, Schedule & Scope
• Trade Space
• Mission Assurance Approach
• Modeling & Simulation Approach
• Launch Vehicle Options
• Planetary Protection Approach
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 9

10. National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
A Powerful Communication Tool
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
Mission
Prelim CML 7
Integrated B/L Definition
Review
I nitial Design CML 6
Preliminary Step 1
Design Concept Baseline CML 5 Proposal
Review
(PDR) Preferred Design
Point within CML 4
Trade Space
Trade Space CML 3
I nitial Feasibility F=ma
CML 2
Cocktail Napkin CML 1
CMLs measure concept maturity in the same way TRLs measure technology readiness
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 10

11. Summary CML Matrix
November 2, 2009
Name Cocktail Initial Trade Space Point Design within Concept Baseline Initial Design Prelim Cost-
Napkin Feasibility Trade Space Sched-Design
Integ B/L
CML 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Organization PI needed for Partnering options identified Pre-Project Manager & Pre- Co-I(s), rest of Science team & Project Manager identified; Remaining Core Project Team Core project team in
Earth and Project Scientist appointed key partners identified Roles & responsibilities of key identified place
Astrophysics (assigned); Implementation partners defined; Draft org chart
concepts mode trades performed developed
Schedule Documented to Rough (or required) launch Variations and risks to 1-page top-level Gantt chart 1-page Gantt Chart expanded Top-level Gantt Chart & draft Preliminary Integrated
approximate half- year and mission duration development schedule and generated; Schedule compared to 1-month resolution with key IMS (with critical path and Master Schedule
decade documented impacts to mission duration to Schedule Rules-of-Thumb deliverables, system reviews, funded schedule reserve) produced
documented guidelines and critical path updated
Cost Cost estimated by Cost estimates using Division Cost sensitivities across trade Model-based estimate iterated A cost comparison table with at Cost estimate is a combination Signed-off grass roots
analogy (scatter- 3X costing models generated space as a function of major using models with subsystem least 3 reconciled model-based of grass roots and model- cost estimated by
plot model) (e.g., MC2, ROMMIT, CoMET, drivers determined level functionality; Team X estimates produced (e.g., Price, based cost estimates organizations
Rapid Costing Tool, etc.) ) model-based cost estimate SEER, etc.); Input parameters responsible for
for each model identified completing the work
Science Prime science, Objectives quantified to levels Objectives broadened to include End-to-end approach for Science Traceability Matrix Level 2 & 3 driving Final PLRA submitted;
exploration & that allow comparison with acceptable alternatives; Cost and achieving science documented; produced requirements documented Preliminary Level 2 &
technology previous investigations; risk sensitivities to varying levels Distinction between baseline & 3 requirements
objectives Internal draft Level 1 of science return quantified threshold (floor) success criteria documented
documented requirements documented documented;
Mission High level Rudimentary calculations & Alternative sets of mission Driving requirements, initial high- Mission operational phases Expanded description of Key driving mission
description of comparisons to mission architectures vs. science level scenarios, timelines and documented to level needed for mission phases to illustrate scenarios, timelines
mission analogues to demonstrate objectives, cost, & risk operational modes documented illustrating how science critical s/c/ ground functions and modes
documented feasibility documented documented & evaluated objectives will be met documented documented in detail
Spacecraft High-level Key flight elements, design Alternate flight system System architecture and Subsystem & instrument Initial system and subsystem System and
description of parameters and performance architectures and payloads vs. instrument design described by designs described; design documented subsystem design,
System spacecraft requirements documented; science/mission objectives, cost mech. config. drawings and block instrument accommodations open issues and
documented High-level comparison to and risk documented & evaluated diagrams; recommended external I/F
similar flight systems heritage and descope options documented
documented
Ground None at this time Mission ops approach Mission ops drivers and Ops concept documented; Major MOS responsibilities, MOS diagrams with proposed MOS implementation
documented; High-level sensitivities documented MOS/GDS/ operations support block diagrams, facilities and inheritance documented w/ mission unique
System comparison to similar ground architecture based on complexity I/Fs with science community items documented
systems documented of ops scenarios quantified documented
Technical What is How to implement new Mitigation/ development options A 5 × 5 matrix with relevant risk Selected mitigation/ Risk list expanded to include Project risk
unprecedented? functionality; Initial risk drivers for risks characterized and drivers (include selected development options into second tier subsystem and/or management process
Risks and developments documented mitigation/ development options) baseline detailed; Strategies for instrument risks implemented
documented used control, allocation and release
of tech margins and cost
reserves documented

12. National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Science CML Matrix
Laboratory
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
Science Prime Objectives Objectives End-to-end Science Level 2 & 3 Final PLRA
science, quantified to broadened to approach for Traceability driving submitted;
exploration levels that include achieving Matrix requirements Preliminary
& allow acceptable science produced documented Level 2 & 3
technology comparison alternatives; documented; requirements
objectives with previous Cost and risk Distinction documented
documented investigations; sensitivities to between baseline
Internal draft varying levels of & threshold
Level 1 science return (floor) success
requirements quantified criteria
documented documented;
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 12

13. Pre-Phase A and Formulation Phase Life
National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
Cycle (Updated 10.26.2009)
California Institute of
Technology
Pasadena, California
Advanced Concept Step 1 Step 2 Phase B
Project Preliminary Design &
Phase Studies Development Proposal Proposal
Technology Completion
Draft AO Down Site Project
AO release Select Visit Selection KDP-C
Major PIs identify mission concepts Step 1 Step 2
Project
Gates & Concept Portfolio Cost Baseline Commitment Proposal Proposal CSR
Reviews Review Gate Preview Commitment Gate/Proposal Implementation Reviews Submitted PMSR PDR
Review/Gate Submitted Risk Review
CML 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Advanced Pre-Phase A Phase A Phase B
Project Concept Development Concept & Technology Preliminary Design &
Phase Studies
Development Technology Completion
Science Advisory Initiate Science Instrument Acquisition
Group Pre-Project Definition KDP-A AO Strategy Meeting KDP-B KDP-C
Team
Major
Project
Milestones Mission
& Reviews Study Report MCR SRR MDR PDR
CML 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
- CML tied to a life cycle milestone - CML that occurs between life cycle milestones
2/9/2010 PM Challenge 13