Path to Mission Concept Review Michael J. Gazarik Deputy Director for Programs System Engineering Directorate NASA Langl

1. Path to Mission Concept Review Michael J. Gazarik Deputy Director for Programs System Engineering Directorate NASA Langley Research Center October 23, 2008 Robert Reisse CLARREO Study Project Manger Contributors Michelle Garn, Paul Speth, Steve Hall

2. Outline • Science and Engineering Interaction: Key to Mission Success • Purpose of a Mission Concept Review (MCR) • Required Products for a Successful MCR • Schedule of Activities leading to MCR • Integrated System Engineering Team • What we need from the Science Community

3. CLARREO & DESDynI • CLARREO & DESDynI are the next Decadal Survey missions to be addressed by the ESD • Both missions are directed science missions with individual budget lines. They are managed out of the Earth Systematic Missions (ESM) Program Office located at GSFC • The CLARREO mission is led by LaRC, with GSFC support • Draft level 1 requirements & initial international partnership discussions, Fall 2008 • Initial mission concepts, Spring 2009, • Full technology readiness assessment, MCR October 2009 • The DESDynI is led by JPL, with a significant GSFC contribution • Draft level 1 requirements & initial international partnership discussions, Fall 2008 • Mission configuration down select, Spring 2009 • Full technology readiness assessment, MCR October 2009 From Steve Volz, Associate Director, Flight Programs, NASA Earth Science Division

5. CALIPSO

6. NASA Mission LifeCycle • Pre-Phase A: Concept Studies • MCR: Mission Concept Review • Phase A: Concept & Technology Development • SRR: System Requirements Review • Phase B: Preliminary Design • PDR: Preliminary Design Review • Technology Readiness Level should be at least 6 • Phase C: Final Design • CDR: Critical Design Review • Phase D: Assembly, Integration & Test • Phase E: Operations • Phase F: Closeout

7. Mission Concept Review (MCR) • Related to Key Decision Point (KDP A) – used by NASA to decide if mission should move into Phase A (Formulation) • Our opportunity to advocate to Agency management and independent review board that mission is well formulated and defined – with rationale for key decisions

8. Roadmap to Mission Concept Review (MCR) Science Imperatives (Goals), Objectives, Questions Objective: Establish a climate benchmark for testing/validation of climate models Detailed Science Questions Level 1 Requirements From the objectives develop level 1 requirements. CLARREO shall measure xx with an accuracy of xx and spatial resolution of xx, etc MCR deliverable: Level 1 Requirements Document Mission Requirements & Operational Concept Develop mission requirements and a concept of operation for the mission from level 1 requirements. MCR deliverable: Preliminary Mission Requirements Document MCR deliverable: Preliminary Mission Operations Concept Document Iterate Mission Design Robust Baseline Mission Design. Include descope options, cost, & schedule MCR deliverable: Mission Concept Report, Schedule, Cost Analysis No Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation Assess technology maturity and develop a risk assessment & mitigation approach. MCR deliverable: Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation Document Initial concept complete? Yes Mission Concept Review (MCR) – Must pass this review to move from the Pre-Phase A phase (i.e., Concept Studies) into Phase A (i.e., Concept and Technology Development)

9. MCR Deliverables Level 1 Requirements Systems Drivers, strawman needed to start mission analysis Preliminary Mission Requirements Document Preliminary Mission Operations Concept Document System Driven & Programmatic, mission analysis needed to develop these Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation Mission Acquisition Approach Formulation Authorization Document (FAD) required to enter phase A Cost Analysis Internal and External to Project Work Breakdown Structure Schedule Full Project Lifecycle Schedule Detailed Phase A Schedule Other documents required Architecture & System Concept Report Mission Concept Report Institutional Capabilities V&V draft for risk reduction Draft Project Plan Systems Engineering Management Plan MCR Presentation Package Draft Configuration Management Plan

10. CLARREO Mission WBS WBS 1.0 Project Management WBS 2.0 Systems Engineering WBS 3.0 Safety & Mission Assurance WBS 4.0 Science WBS 5.0 Payload WBS 6.0 Spacecraft WBS 7.0 Mission Operations WBS 8.0 Launch Systems WBS 9.0 Ground Systems WBS 10.0 Systems Integration and Test WBS 11.0 Education & Public Outreach WBS 3.1 Safety & Mission Assurance Mgmt WBS 1.1 Project Mgmt WBS 2.1 Requiret’s Devel. & Mgmt. WBS 4.1 Science Mgmt WBS 5.1 Payload Mgmt WBS 6.1 Spacecraft Mgmt WBS 7.1 Mission Operations Mgmt WBS 8.1 Launch Mgmt WBS 9.1 Ground Systems Mgmt WBS 10.1 Payload to Spacecraft Integration WBS 4.2 Science Team WBS 5.2 Payload System Engineering WBS 6.2 Spacecraft WBS 7.2 Spacecraft Operations WBS 9.2 Ground Stations WBS 10.2 Spacecraft to Launch Vehicle Integration WBS 8.2 Launch Vehicle WBS 1.2 Business Mgmt WBS 2,2 Risk Mgmt WBS 3.2 System Safety WBS 6.2.1 Spacecraft SE WBS 4.3 Measure-ment Validation WBS 7.3 Instrument Operations WBS 8.2.1 SE WBS 1.3 Project Planning & Schedule Mgmt WBS 3.3 Reliability Engineering WBS 5.3 Payload WBS 9.12.1 Spacecraft Commanding WBS 2,3 Configura-tion Mgmt WBS 6.2.2 Structural WBS 8.2.2 Interfaces WBS 7.4 Data Processing WBS 4.4 Climate Modeling WBS 3.4 EEE Parts Engineering WBS 5.3.1 Solar Spectro-meter WBS 1.4 Project Reviews WBS 6.2.3 C&DH WBS 8.3 Launch Services WBS 9.2.2 Data Relay WBS 2.4 Trade Study Mgmt WBS 3.5 Quality Assurance Engineering WBS 4.5 Science Data Support WBS 6.2.4 Power WBS 1.5 Facilities WBS 5.3.2 Far IR Spectro-meter WBS 9.3 Communications WBS 6.2.4.1 Battery WBS 1.6 Travel WBS 9.4 Ops Centers WBS 2.5 Interfaces WBS 3.6 Materials & Processes Assurance WBS 4.6 Operational Support WBS 6.2.4.2 Solar Arrays WBS 5.3.3 GPS Instrument WBS 2,6 Contamination Control WBS 6.2.4.3 Charging & Distribution WBS 3.7 Contamina-tion Control Assurance WBS 4.7 Instrument Modeling WBS 5.3.4 IR Spectro-meter WBS 6.2.5 Thermal WBS 2.7 Materials & Processes WBS 6.2.6 Communications WBS 3.8 Software IV&V WBS 6.2.9 Pyro/ Release WBS 6.2.7 Attitude Control, etc. WBS 3.9 Mission Operations Assurance WBS 6.2.7.1 Attitude Control WBS 6.2.7.2 Propulsion WBS 6.2.8 Interfaces

11. CLARREO Systems Engineering Chart Project Systems Engineer Michelle Garn Consultant John Rogers SE Deliverables Management Rick Walker Flight Systems Integration Craig Jones Mission Design & Analysis Paul Speth Payload Interface Management Dave Johnson Operational Concepts Steve Hall • Requirements Management • Definition, flow down, tracking • Requirement mgt tool • Level 1 Requirements Doc • Mission Requirements Doc • Configuration Management • CM tool, processes, plan • Schedule Development • Project full life cycle • Detailed phase A plan • Science Trade Study Mgt • Tracking current studies • Identifying gaps • Technical Resource Mgt • Margins mgt • Technology Readiness • FAD • SEMP • Project Plan • Mission Acquisition Report • WBS • V&V • Mission Concept Development • Identifying trades • Initial analysis (small team) • Developing Engineering Data Request Matrix • Developing Engineering Trade Matrix • Cost Analysis • Sub-systems being staffed • Orbital Mechanics • Thermal • Comm & Data • Optical • Structural • Mechanical • Power • Avionics • Electronics • Software • S/C Interfaces • Propulsion • Requirements • Instrument requirements • Science baseline mission focused on inter-calibration • Science baseline mission focused on benchmarking • Demonstration mission • Ground Systems • Mission Operations • Developing traceability between on-going trade studies and mission parameter requirements Monitor ICD Development & Control Launch Vehicle Interface Spacecraft Bus Interface Mission Ops Interface Ground Systems Interface Software GPS RO Solar Reflected Spectrometer Near-IR to Mid-IR Spectrometer Mid-IR to Far-IR Spectrometer

12. Defining Engineering Space: Mission Trades • Number of satellites and orbit selection • Benchmark and/or inter-calibration • Diurnal cycle and/or orbital overlap for inter-calibration • Instrument redundancy • Spacecraft pointing versus nadir only • Spectral range and resolution • Spatial and temporal sampling requirements • Footprint size • GPS requirements • Validation approach (i.e., aircraft, other satellites, balloons, redundant instruments) • Level of international partnering • Scope of mission (i.e., demonstration versus operational mission)

13. Mission Trade Space Considerations Mission Lifetime Benchmark, Inter-calibration Or Hybrid Spacecraft Instrument Suite and Redundancy Spacecraft Subsystem Redundancy Pointing requirement responsibility Diurnal Sampling or Orbital Overlap Spacecraft Operations & Mission Implementation Number of spacecraft On-orbit operation & duty cycle Each variation of the top-level science implementation trades will flow into concurrent subsystem designs to characterize the overall trade space. Array structure Array articulation Cell and Battery Sizing CPU Throughput Data storage Instrument interfaces Payload location / interfaces Boom complexity Meet thermal, viewing, and stiffness requirement Fuel system config Fuel and Engine trades Tank sizing for max prop load Attitude Mode Stabilization Method Component Sizing Passive vs. Active Payload Thermal Interfaces Thermal Biasing TLM/CMD Frequency TLM/CMD Ground Support Modulation/ Encoding

14. Define Engineering Space • Parallel Engineering Path • Define engineering space while science studies are underway • Utilize System Analysis Tools and Integrated Design Tools to efficiently study multiple mission concepts • Engineering in parallel – develop concept and key trades to get cost by March 2009 • Expect Level 1 Requirements by April 2009 – narrow the trade space • Conduct traditional integrated design sessions to refine mission until MCR • Generate cost and technical assessment of mission concepts to support results of science trade results expected in Spring 2009 • Balance the equation • Add cost, risk, and feasibility to discussions of science objectives • Sampling discussion: cost of additional spacecraft and launch, launch vehicle options • Solar and Infrared on same spacecraft: TRL assessment, mass, launch vehicle, cost • Field of View: mass and cost impact of 13Km FOV vs. 100Km FOV, • Crosstrack scanning: mass, power, cost, performance of scanner • Instrument Redundancy: cost of additional instruments • Baseline a mission concept with respect to NASA Standards and Expectations • Certified Launch Vehicles • Parametric and Grassroots cost estimation • Develop descope options to baseline concept • Close cooperation with Earth Science Systematic Mission Program Office • Leverage lessons learned from SMAP and ICESAT-II Healthy tension

15. Fix Final Results Prelim Results

16. Integrated Systems Engineering Team • Complex mission • Climate is complex • Multiple instruments: solar, infrared, far-infrared and GPS • Not a process mission • Strong tie to standards and metrology • Realize Expertise in Climate Community • Consider Options that Reduce Mission Risk • Build a diverse and deep systems engineering team that encompasses instrumentation, on-ground calibration, on-orbit calibration, and level 1 processing • With consideration that some of the instruments and key subsystems will be selected through competitive process

17. What We Need from Science Team • What Engineering Team needs from Science team • Need rationale for key mission drivers: • Orbit determination – which orbit and how many? • Instrumentation: Solar, infrared and GPS on same spacecraft? • Field of view: zonal, regional, or global; facilitate attribution; facilitate validation; facilitate cross-calibration and benchmark • Inter-calibration concept, radiance benchmark concept, or both? • Crosstrack: nadir view only sufficient? • Spectral resolution: not as much of a driver at this stage (assuming >0.5 cm-1) • Detector noise performance: identify technology drivers & cyrocooler impact • Level 1 Science requirements • Incorporate: “Better is the evil of good enough” philosophy • Aiming for 80% solution • Ability to form to a consensus • Willingness to compromise • Recognition that continued debate will likely delay mission • Do we have a team that is interested in the mission, even at the cost of their particular interest? • Will issues be discussed with rationale tied to the mission science goals? • Studies with a focused approach • Answer a question that drives mission parameter