Casas, Joseph

NASA Technical Reports Server

"Lean Small Satellite Missions Require Lean Access to
Space"
Joseph Casas
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Joseph.casas@nasa.gov
1
Small Lean Science, Technology and Exploration
Missions and Access to Space
Joseph Casas
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190026547 2019-09-26T19:24:13+00:00Z
Outline
Context of Use of Space for Small Missions
Reliability Management Approach Considerations
Launch Access
Small Lean Science, Technology and Exploration Missions and
Access to Space
2
3Context of Space Use
• Over the past several decades of years the small satellite mission market has been experiencing an
advanced rate of growth in capabilities, number of missions and user investments due to the
increasing demand of small satellite applications among end users within academia, commercial,
defense, and government.
• This higher scale of growth on an international basis in both interest level and actual participation
within the space communities is subsequently influencing the development of small satellite
spacecraft technologies, payload instruments, approaches to mission development and launch vehicle
systems.
• Within this growth of the small satellite user missions, a new range of experiments, projects,
programs, organizations and businesses are being created to advance the use of small missions for
scientific research, technology development, data services, exploration and operational capabilities.
• Three of the major factors effecting this growth in the use of the space environment are
• the size of the spacecraft,
• the reliability management approach
• and the availability of a wide variety of lower cost launch accommodations
Context of Space Use
4
• The global small satellite market size in USA dollars was valued at $2,045
million USD in 2015, and is expected to reach at a compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 19.8% with the revenue of $7,179 million USD by
2022.
Context of Space Use
5
• Small satellites are used to conduct missions both in earth orbit , cis-lunar
and planetary . Small satellites are categorized into mini-satellites (mass of
100‐500 kg), microsatellites (10‐100 kg), and nanosatellites (1‐10 kg).  The
fastest growth in number of small satellite recently is in the size category of
less than 50-kilogram in mass.
Context of Space Use
6
• This growing market in the number of small satellites reflects increases
in the use of spacecraft for various applications such as Earth
observation, communication, scientific research, and technology
demonstration
Context of Space Use
7
• The growing demand for access to space by small satellite mission
users and the increasing use of constellations for experimental and
operational applications, such as remote sensing, navigation,
communication, Internet of Things(IoT) and observations missions has
created driving factors of interest, opportunities and sometimes
concerns within the small satellite communities of interest.
• These communities of interest are involved as users, developers,
suppliers, consumers of services, investors, regulators and legislators
Context of Space Use
8
• As in many technological oriented markets, many factors influence the
growth of the small satellite market and the characteristics of the
market sectors.
• Two of the major factors driving both interest and concerns addressed
in this paper are in the areas of
• reliability management approach
• launch access
Context of Space Use
9
Reliability Management
• In general NASA* divides all airborne/space science equipment
into one of four risk classifications-
Very Low
Risk
(ClassA)
Low Risk
(Class B)
Medium
Risk
(Class C)
High
Risk
(Class D)
Typical baseline
• Determining the risk classification for a particular payload is an
inexact, iterative process
– Classification is finalized prior to Preliminary Design Review
through a combination of various NASAoffices/organizations/
councils
*- NPR 8705.4, “Risk Classifications for NASA Payloads” 33 10
Risk Classification Considerations*
4
*-NPR 8705.4
ClassA
(VeryLow
Risk)
Class
B(Low
Risk)
ClassC
(Medium
Risk)
Class
D(High
Risk)
Priority(Criticalityto
AgencyStrategicPlan)
andAcceptable Risk
Level
Highpriority,
very
low(minimized)
risk
High
priority,
lowrisk
Mediumpriorit
y,
mediumrisk
Low
priority,
highrisk
NationalSignificance Veryhigh High Medium Low-to-medium
Complexity Veryhightohigh Hightomedium Mediumtolow Mediumtolow
MissionLifetime
(Primary Baseline Mission)
Long>5yrs Medium2-5 yrs Short(~3) Short(<2 yrs)
Cost High HightoMedium Mediumtolow Low
LaunchConstraints Critical Medium Few FewtoNone
In-flightMaintenance N/A Notfeasibleordifficult Maybefeasible Maybefeasible
and
planned
AlternativeResearch
OpportunitiesorRe-
flight Opportunities
Noalternativeorre-
flight
opportunities
Fewor no
alternativeor re-
flightopportunities
Someorfew
alternative or re-flight
opportunities
Significant
alternative or re-
flight opportunities
Achievement
of Mission
Success
Criteria
All practicalmeasures
are takento achieve
minimumriskto
mission success.The
highestassurance
standardsare
used.
Stringent assurance
standards with only
minorcompromises in
applicationtomaintain
a lowrisk to mission
success.
Mediumrisk of not
achievingmission
successmaybe
acceptable.
Reduced
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
Mediumor
significant riskof
notachieving
missionsuccessis
permitted. Minimal
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
4
Reliability Management
11
Example- Deep Space Science Mission
1
2
ClassA
(VeryLow
Risk)
Class
B(Low
Risk)
ClassC
(Medium
Risk)
Class
D(High
Risk)
Priority(Criticalityto
AgencyStrategicPlan)
andAcceptable Risk
Level
Highpriority,
very
low(minimized)
risk
High
priority,
lowrisk
Mediumpriorit
y,
mediumrisk
Low
priority,
highrisk
NationalSignificance Veryhigh High Medium Low-to-medium
Complexity Veryhightohigh Hightomedium Mediumtolow Mediumtolow
MissionLifetime
(Primary Baseline Mission)
Long>5yrs Medium2-5yrs Short Short (<2yrs)
Cost High HightoMedium Mediumtolow Low
LaunchConstraints Critical Medium Few FewtoNone
In-flightMaintenance N/A Notfeasibleordifficult Maybefeasible Maybefeasible
and
planned
AlternativeResearch
OpportunitiesorRe-
flight Opportunities
Noalternativeorre-
flight
opportunities
Fewor no
alternativeor re-
flightopportunities
Someorfew
alternative or re-flight
opportunities
Significant
alternative or re-
flight opportunities
Achievement
of Mission
Success
Criteria
All practicalmeasures
are takento achieve
minimumriskto
mission success.The
highestassurance
standardsare
used.
Stringent assurance
standards with only
minorcompromises in
applicationtomaintain
a lowrisk to mission
success.
Mediumrisk of not
achievingmission
successmaybe
acceptable.
Reduced
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
Mediumor
significant riskof
notachieving
missionsuccessis
permitted. Minimal
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
5
Reliability Management
12
Example- Earth Science Orbiter (3 yr mission)
1
3
ClassA
(VeryLow
Risk)
Class
B(Low
Risk)
ClassC
(Medium
Risk)
Class
D(High
Risk)
Priority(Criticalityto
AgencyStrategicPlan)
andAcceptable Risk
Level
Highpriority,
very
low(minimized)
risk
High
priority,
lowrisk
Mediumpriorit
y,
mediumrisk
Low
priority,
highrisk
NationalSignificance Veryhigh High Medium Low-to-medium
Complexity Veryhightohigh Hightomedium Mediumtolow Mediumtolow
MissionLifetime
(Primary Baseline Mission)
Long>5yrs Medium2-5yrs Short Short (<2yrs)
Cost High HightoMedium Mediumtolow Low
LaunchConstraints Critical Medium Few FewtoNone
In-flightMaintenance N/A Notfeasibleordifficult Maybefeasible Maybefeasible
and
planned
AlternativeResearch
OpportunitiesorRe-
flight Opportunities
Noalternativeorre-
flight
opportunities
Fewor no
alternativeor re-
flightopportunities
Someorfew
alternative or re-flight
opportunities
Significant
alternative or re-
flight opportunities
Achievement
of Mission
Success
Criteria
All practicalmeasures
are takento achieve
minimumriskto
mission success.The
highestassurance
standardsare
used.
Stringent assurance
standards with only
minorcompromises in
applicationtomaintain
a lowrisk to mission
success.
Mediumrisk of not
achievingmission
successmaybe
acceptable.
Reduced
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
Mediumor
significant riskof
notachieving
missionsuccessis
permitted. Minimal
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
6
Reliability Management
13
Example- Science Instrument for Mars Lander
1
4
ClassA
(VeryLow
Risk)
Class
B(Low
Risk)
ClassC
(Medium
Risk)
Class
D(High
Risk)
Priority(Criticalityto
AgencyStrategicPlan)
andAcceptable Risk
Level
Highpriority,
very
low(minimized)
risk
High
priority,
lowrisk
Mediumpriorit
y,
mediumrisk
Low
priority,
highrisk
NationalSignificance Veryhigh High Medium Low-to-medium
Complexity Veryhightohigh Hightomedium Mediumtolow Mediumtolow
MissionLifetime
(Primary Baseline Mission)
Long>5yrs Medium2-5yrs Short Short (<2yrs)
Cost High HightoMedium Mediumtolow Low
LaunchConstraints Critical Medium Few FewtoNone
In-flightMaintenance N/A Notfeasibleordifficult Maybefeasible Maybefeasible
and
planned
AlternativeResearch
OpportunitiesorRe-
flight Opportunities
Noalternativeorre-
flight
opportunities
Fewor no
alternativeor re-
flightopportunities
Someorfew
alternative or re-flight
opportunities
Significant
alternative or re-
flight opportunities
Achievement
of Mission
Success
Criteria
All practicalmeasures
are takento achieve
minimumriskto
mission success.The
highestassurance
standardsare
used.
Stringent assurance
standards with only
minorcompromises in
applicationtomaintain
a lowrisk to mission
success.
Mediumrisk of not
achievingmission
successmaybe
acceptable.
Reduced
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
Mediumor
significant riskof
notachieving
missionsuccessis
permitted. Minimal
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
7
Reliability Management
14
Example- Space Station Science Demo
1
5
ClassA
(VeryLow
Risk)
Class
B(Low
Risk)
ClassC
(Medium
Risk)
Class
D(High
Risk)
Priority(Criticalityto
AgencyStrategicPlan)
andAcceptable Risk
Level
Highpriority,
very
low(minimized)
risk
High
priority,
lowrisk
Mediumpriorit
y,
mediumrisk
Low
priority,
highrisk
NationalSignificance Veryhigh High Medium Low-to-medium
Complexity Veryhightohigh Hightomedium Mediumtolow Mediumtolow
MissionLifetime
(Primary Baseline Mission)
Long>5yrs Medium2-5yrs Short Short (<2yrs)
3yr goal
Cost High HightoMedium Mediumtolow Low
LaunchConstraints Critical Medium Few FewtoNone
In-flightMaintenance N/A Notfeasibleordifficult Maybefeasible Maybefeasible
and
planned
AlternativeResearch
OpportunitiesorRe-
flight Opportunities
Noalternativeorre-
flight
opportunities
Fewor no
alternativeor re-
flightopportunities
Someorfew
alternative or re-flight
opportunities
Significant
alternative or re-
flight opportunities
Achievement
of Mission
Success
Criteria
All practicalmeasures
are takento achieve
minimumriskto
mission success.The
highestassurance
standardsare
used.
Stringent assurance
standards with only
minorcompromises in
applicationtomaintain
a lowrisk to mission
success.
Mediumrisk of not
achievingmission
successmaybe
acceptable.
Reduced
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
Mediumor
significant riskof
notachieving
missionsuccessis
permitted. Minimal
assurancestandard
s arepermitted.
8
Reliability Management
15
Recap- It’s a Two Step Process
Designate
a Risk
Class
Very
Low
Low Medium
High
EEE Parts
• Class A- NPSL Level 1
• Class B- NPSL Level 1/2
• Class C- NPSL Level 1/2/3
• Class D- NPSL Level 1/2/3
Reliability
• Class A- FMEA, Worst Case, Parts Stress Analysis
• Class B- Box level FMEA, Worst Case, Parts Stress
• Class C- Interface FMEA, Parts Stress
• Class D- Based on safety requirements
Etc
• Class A
• Class B
• Class C
• Class D
STEP 1
STEP 2
Evaluate requirements associated
with the designated risk classification*
10
*- per NPR 8705.4
Reliability Management
16
ClassA
Missions
ClassB
Missions
ClassC
Missions
Highprioritymissionswith less
impacttocostand schedule
Encompassing
civilization-scale
science
ModerateriskmissionsoftenPI- led with
mediumnationalpriorityscience objectives
ClassD
Missions
Lowernationalpriority, focused, higher risk missionsin a shorter
time frameandlimitedbudgetoften increase technology readiness
TheValueofa BalancedPortfolio
• Importanceof the big missions,
but recognizing long timeframe
toachieveresults
• ResearchandAnalysisisakey
componentof achievingthat
balance
• Employinnovativetechniques
togrowscientificdiscovery
17
Reliability Management
Class D Strategy
Enable Fast
SpaceAccess
Partner
for New
Capabilities
Connect
Science &
Innovation
Leverage
Technology
Investments
InnovativeTechniquesto Inspire Learners
● ExpandscienceprogramstotakeadvantageofClassDandsmall
satelliterapidinnovationtoachievebreakthroughscience
● Enable fastaccesstospaceforfocusedsciencemeasurements
thatfill acritical gapbetweenlargeflightprojects
● Leveragetechnologyinvestmentstofurtherimprovepotentialof
scienceinstruments
● Partner withinternationalagenciesandcommercialentitiesto
acquirenewcapabilitiesofsmallsatelliteplatforms
18
Reliability Management
Accepting higherrisk for scientific gainbyimplementingatailored,
streamlinedclassification approach
MANAGINGRISK
WHILEMEETING
THEMISSION
Reviews
Performance
Measurements
Documentation
Tech
Approach
ClassDStrategyImplementation
19
Medium/High Risk Payload Challenges
• The willingness to assume “additional” risk, versus normal
practice(s), is typically uneven throughout an organization
very
low
med
Risk
Posture
low
high
Systems Gimbal Power Int/Test Cables Optics Avionics
Recent JPLClass D (high risk) Mission at PDR
Class D
• “Medium/high risk is OK in other areas,but not mine”
20
Reliability Management
Main Challenges
• At NASA, there are generally two challenges in dealing with
NASA’s multiple science payload risk classifications-
1) Science payloads with a lower risk posture than the traditional
NASA “low risk” Institutional baseline- i.e., “very low” risk
missions, for example Lean Missions ?
• Meeting these guidelines requires unique add-ons to the
way NASA typically performs work
– Impact of SIX SIGMA approach is usually largely
programmatic- increases in cost and cycle time (full
qualification & acceptance test programs, separate
prototype and flight models, etc)
2) Science payloads that adopt a higher risk posture than the NASA
“low risk” Institutional baseline- “medium/high” risk missions
• In our experience, more effort (than expected) is required to
actually execute a science payload mission with less than
traditional rigor and penetration
3) Opportunities for use of Lean SIX SIGMA approaches
21
Reliability Management
"Lean” Small Satellite Missions Concept
• The concept of “lean satellite missions” was born from the creation andevolution of the practices of lean manufacturing, lean engineering, leansatellites , lean launch and lean operations
• “Lean” is a both technical and management approaches to the “risk andreward” considerations, it is not a standard by itself
• Lean and Six Sigma are widely used in industry as continuous improvementbest practices
• They can also be very complementary in nature and, if performed properly, canproduce unprecedented results
• Lean focuses on eliminating non-value added activities in a process and Six Sigmafocuses on reducing variation from the remaining value-added steps
• Lean provides speed ensuring products and services flow without interruption whileSix Sigma ensures that critical product / service characteristics are completed correctlythe very first time we do them.
22
23
Launch Access to the Environment of Space
• More than 100 organizations world wide are thought to be currently developing  launch vehicles
• More than  30 small launch vehicles are being developed ( < 500kg Payloads)
• Ridesharing opportunities have increase by a factor of 10 in the last 5 years
Lean Access to Space
24
VECTOR ( new)Comparison Only
www.nasa.gov/sls
SLS CAPABILITY AVAILABILITY
SLS Block 1
As Early As 2020
Provides
Initial Heavy-Lift
Capability
Enables
Orion Test
SmallSats to
Deep Space
SLS Block 1B Crew
As Early As 2023
Provides
105 t to LEO
capability via
Exploration Upper
Stage
Co-manifested
payload capability
in Universal Stage
Adapter
Enables
Deep Space
Gateway
Larger CubeSat-
and ESPA-Class
Payloads
SLS Block 1B Cargo
As Early As 2023
Provides
8.4-meter fairings for
primary payloads
Enables
Europa
Clipper/Lander
Deep Space
Transport
Ice or Ocean
Worlds Missions
Large-Aperture
Space Telescopes
SLS Block 2
As Early As 2028
Provides
130 t to LEO
capability via
advanced boosters
10-meter fairings for
primary payloads
Enables
Crewed Mars Orbit
Missions
Crewed Mars
Surface Missions
0361.25
www.nasa.gov/sls
SLS Crew Launch Configurations
.26
Multiple PPC/ESPA Type
Carriers as a Dedicated
Co-Manifested Payload (CPL)
w/ Attached Secondary Payloads
.26
Orion Spacecraft
Spacecraft Adapter
Payload Adapter (PLA)
Exploration Upper Stage
(EUS)
Reference
Co-Manifested Payload (CPL)
Universal Stage Adapter (USA)
Multiple Propulsive/ESPA Payload
Carriers with Secondary Payloads as
a Dedicated Co-Manifested
Payload
A Propulsive Payload Carrier as a
Rideshare Capability for Secondary
Payloads with a Co-Manifested Payload
Propulsive Payload Carrier (PPC)
w/ Attached Secondary Payloads
or
www.nasa.gov/sls
SLS B1B Secondary Payload AccommodationConcept
.27
• Mounting on the Payload
Adapter and Universal
Stage Adapter (USA)
• Possible Complement
• 22 – 6U
• 2 – 12U
• 2 – 27U
• Mounting on the aft
portion of the Payload
Adaptor has been shown
to be the optimal
mounting location
Space elevator -
Mega Rail Gun
Space Planes
Very Large balloons
Mega Rail Gun
What does the Future Hold for Opportunities to Gain Access to Space ?
28
QUESTIONS PLEASE ?
29
Joseph.casas@nasa.gov
+1 256 975 8302
References
30
Presentations;
Kenneth W. Ledbetter NASA, Science Mission Directorate Implementation of
Spacecraft Risk Classifications;
Kim Plourde Caltech , Challenges in Implementing Medium & High Risk NASA
Payloads and
Thomas Zurbuchen and Gregory Robinson, Science Mission Directorate Class
D Strategy
Agenda
• NASA management process for determining mission
and science payload* risk classification
• Examine the management implications of mission science risk
classification
• Typical challenges with implementing science payloads of
varying risk classifications
• The value of balancing our science and technology missions
approach portfolio
• Observations/suggestions going forward
*-Science payload- Any airborne or space equipment or
sensor that is not an integral part of the carrier
vehicle and contributes to the science
objectives. Small Satellite Missions ?
2
2 31


Small Lean Science, Technology and Exploration Missions and Access to Space

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server