JPL Innovation Foundry                                Brent Sherwood1, Manager                               Daniel J. McC...
Executive SummaryJPL Innovation Foundry         • NASA supports the community of mission principal investigators by       ...
Clear trends are changing the world ofJPL Innovation Foundry                                 competed NASA missions       ...
SMD PI-led Mission Community FacesJPL Innovation Foundry                               a Ratcheting Challenge             ...
What Every PI NeedsJPL Innovation Foundry                    • Darwinian evolution of a seed idea                         ...
What Every PI ExpectsJPL Innovation Foundry                • Above all, to win                • Respect for the integrity ...
Derived Requirements for a Supportive                                Mission Formulation ProcessJPL Innovation Foundry    ...
JPL Innovation Foundry               JPL Innovation Foundry               MEETING THE CHALLENGE                           ...
Foundry Infrastructure ElementsJPL Innovation Foundry                                          •   Concept Maturity Level ...
Every mission starts with a sparkJPL Innovation Foundry                                        Science             A quest...
…then the concept is developedJPL Innovation Foundry                                                                Trades...
Concept Maturity Level:JPL Innovation Foundry                                 benchmarking before MDR/PMSR                ...
An onramp to the NASA project lifecycleJPL Innovation Foundry                                                             ...
JPL Innovation Foundry               Accessing the Matrix. Managing the Environment.               APPLYING EXPERTS AND   ...
¼ of the JPL populationJPL Innovation Foundry                          engages in proposals                               ...
A-Team focuses small, expert teamsJPL Innovation Foundry                                          where the leverage is hi...
JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
“Analytical fictions” innovated, “partials”JPL Innovation Foundry    quantified, viable options synthesized               ...
Concurrent engineering efficientlyJPL Innovation Foundry         advances to CML 4                                  •   Ar...
JPL Innovation Foundry
Upgraded concurrent engineering theaters                            based on experience of 103 studiesJPL Innovation Found...
JPL Innovation Foundry               Capturing the Wealth of Lessons Learned               PRE-PROJECT PRINCIPLES &       ...
Guidance for each concept elementJPL Innovation Foundry                         Technical                          Program...
…organized in the progressiveJPL Innovation Foundry        CML framework                                                  ...
…and Web-hosted for partner teamsJPL Innovation Foundry                                                             25
JPL Innovation Foundry
Summary: JPL Innovation FoundryJPL Innovation Foundry                         is improving NASA mission formulation       ...
Dan McCleese, Director                           daniel.j.mccleese@jpl.nasa.gov                         Brent Sherwood, Ma...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

B sherwood dmc_cleese

15,099 views
14,993 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
15,099
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
60
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 1373 in total. Note, many of the “green” people also worked proposals. Also, this is a lower bound number – don’t have people listed who worked through service centers (eg. Doc services)
  • B sherwood dmc_cleese

    1. 1. JPL Innovation Foundry Brent Sherwood1, Manager Daniel J. McCleese1, DirectorJPL Innovation Foundry 1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA PM Challenge February, 2012 © 2012 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.
    2. 2. Executive SummaryJPL Innovation Foundry • NASA supports the community of mission principal investigators by helping them ideate, mature, and propose concepts for new missions. As NASA’s FFRDC, JPL is a primary resource for providing this service. • The environmental context for the formulation lifecycle evolves continuously. Contemporary trends include: more competitors; more- complex mission ideas; scarcer formulation resources; and higher standards for technical evaluation. • Derived requirements for formulation support include: stable, clear, reliable methods tailored for each stage of the formulation lifecycle; on-demand access to standout technical and programmatic subject-matter experts; optimized, outfitted facilities; smart access to learning embodied in a vast oeuvre of prior formulation work; hands-on method coaching. • JPL has retooled its provision of integrated formulation lifecycle support to PIs, teams, and program offices in response to this need. This mission formulation enterprise is the JPL Innovation Foundry. 1
    3. 3. Clear trends are changing the world ofJPL Innovation Foundry competed NASA missions • More competitors – Increasing population of PIs with requisite credentials – Balance tilting toward PI-led missions vs. flagships • More-complex mission ideas – Earth-system science; exoplanet observation; planet interiors; surface interaction, mobility, and return; outer solar system • Scarcer formulation resources – Topline-constrained new-start opportunities – Phase A/B funding inadequate to bound risk • Toughening standard of technical evaluation – Ratcheting expectation for PDR-level validation – Increasing risk aversion because of the recognition that formulation casts the die 2
    4. 4. SMD PI-led Mission Community FacesJPL Innovation Foundry a Ratcheting Challenge Simultaneous, competitive formulation… …of a large number …of deeply engineered concepts …for ambitious science objectives …achieved using only well-understood systems …formulated on a strict diet 3
    5. 5. What Every PI NeedsJPL Innovation Foundry • Darwinian evolution of a seed idea – Maturation into a toughened concept baseline – That can win, fly, and deliver • Accurate forecasting despite incomplete data – Of the eventual state of truth regarding cost and risk – Of how NASA will model that state of truth when it evaluates the concept 4
    6. 6. What Every PI ExpectsJPL Innovation Foundry • Above all, to win • Respect for the integrity of the scientific vision – Aligned pursuit of the best way to implement it – Proprietary protection • Dedicated campaign team – Undistracted and undiluted – Never feeling the presence of parallel campaigns • The best help NASA can muster – No stone unturned – Deepest experts applied as needed – Tangible, relevant lessons learned from NASA’s prior concepts, proposals, and feedback • Full immersion in decision-making ecology – Selective control over concept and proposal development – No surprises 5
    7. 7. Derived Requirements for a Supportive Mission Formulation ProcessJPL Innovation Foundry • Method – Stable, reliable, clear, understood, exercised – Tailored for each stage of the formulation lifecycle • SME access – Standout subject-matter experts (technical and programmatic) – On-demand when (but only when) needed • Facilities – Optimized for pace and interactions of formulation • Smart access to prior art – Thousands of engineered concepts, hundreds of vetted proposals, tens of PI-led missions already “in the can” • Hands-on coaching of the formulation craft 6
    8. 8. JPL Innovation Foundry JPL Innovation Foundry MEETING THE CHALLENGE 7
    9. 9. Foundry Infrastructure ElementsJPL Innovation Foundry • Concept Maturity Level scale Method • Pre-Project Principles & Practices • Campaign template tailoring • Proposal Power Tools SME access • Skill cadre via matrix organization (technical, programmatic, and method) • Concept innovation and maturation teams (A-Team, Team X) • Left Field (ideation) Facilities • Design Center (concurrent engineering) • Proposal Center (secure war rooms) • Information management Access to prior art • Knowledge management Hands-on coaching • Technical facilitation 8
    10. 10. Every mission starts with a sparkJPL Innovation Foundry Science A question An invention A mission concept Mission Architecture Technology Engineering 9
    11. 11. …then the concept is developedJPL Innovation Foundry 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 Assists (GAs). SEP+GAs warrants further consideration, but new optimized trajectory search is needed. Capture into Saturn system Titan aerocapture Propulsive capture Uranus Aerogravity assist saves mass and also saves at Satellites (aerogravity assist) least several months in pumpdown . 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. or Interior leveraged GAs Interior Magnetic Energetic Surface Surface Structure Atmosphere Structure RPS type MMRTG ARPS (advanced Field Particles specific power higher, efficiency much ARPS Structure Composition (Gravity Field) (Gravity Field) Stirling) higher (less Pu needed). Guidelines allowed ARPS as acceptable and available option for flagship studies. Orbiter implementation Enceladus Orbiter Low-Energy High-Energy Enceladus Multiple- Enceladus Multiple- Lg. Circ. Vertical Release of Flyby (Saturn Flyby (Saturn Sm. Conv. Structure Internal Heat Orbiter) Orbiter) Lander/Probe implementation Fly-Through Rough Landers Soft Landers Orbi-Landers Priority placed on having in-situ measurements Probes and from surface. Impactors Fly-By Number of landers None One Three (regional Five (larger-scale distribution) distribution and/or redundancy) Lander lifetime/duration Short-lived (~2 Long-lived (~1 year Polar Orbiter weeks on primary on RPS) battery or fuel cell) A Enceladus orbiter with multiple B Enceladus orbiter with multiple Lander mobility type Stationary Locally mobile (~10 Regionally mobile Globally mobile Considered propulsive "hopper" type concepts 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 for soft landers. Equatorial G High energy Saturn orbiter km) (~100 km) H Low energy Saturn orbiter F Low energy Saturn orbiter I Low energy Saturn orbiter Orbiter C Enceladus orbiter alone short lived landers long-lived landers Acceptable and long-lived lander long-lived lander (flybys) alone (flybys) alone Atm. Probe evaluated in this Legend: study Mass Comparison Summary - Launch Mass and Sub-Elements Cassini landers lander Acceptable but not evaluated in this Science Goals, Enceladus Mission Science Assessment - 0-10, 10 best Lander 8000 study 7000 Unacceptable heat source, what IV-Heavy C3=16 km^2/s^2 1. What is the Delta drives the plume 10 6 7 4 5 5 2 1 3 6 1 6,000 One man’s concept is Free-Flying Instruments 6000 2. What is the plume production rate, and does it vary 8 8 9 8 9 9 7 3 8 7 3 3. What are the effects of the plume on the structure and 5,000 5000 composition of Enceladus? Atlas 551 C3=16 km^2/s^2 5 8 9 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 Mass (kg) 4. What are the interaction effects of the plume on the 4000 Saturnian system 3 7 7 7 6 6 8 7 8 7 7 4,000 another’s doodle… Lander(s) 3000 5. Does the composition and/or existence of the plume give Orbiter $FY06M us clues to the origin and evolution of the solar system Aerocapture System 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 3 2000 3,000 TMC 6. Does the plume source environment provide the Stage Cruise/Prop conditions necessary (or sufficient) to sustain biotic or pre- 1000 biotic chemistry 5 8 8 6 7 8 6 5 7 8 3 7. Are other similar bodies (Dione, Tethys, Rhea) also 2,000 0 active, and if not, why not? 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 5 A B C D E F G H I 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 1,000 0.449 0.187 - Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G Option H Option I 10
    12. 12. Concept Maturity Level:JPL Innovation Foundry benchmarking before MDR/PMSR Preliminary Trade Space Implementation Cocktail Napkin Baseline Concept Baseline CML 1 CML 2 CML 3 CML 4 CML 5 CML 6 CML 7 CML 8 TRL 6 Initial Feasibility Integrated Concept Point Design Integrated Baseline 11
    13. 13. An onramp to the NASA project lifecycleJPL Innovation Foundry • Portfolio validation, trade-space focusing • Point-design concept  Release of Draft AO Competed Projects • Stable baseline  submit Step 1 Proposal • Deep plan  submit Step 2 CSR Advanced Studies Concept Development • PMSR (in ΦB) Step 1 - Proposal Step 2 – Phase A • PDR  KDP-C Phase B – Prelim Design & TRL 6 CML 1 CML 2 CML 3 CML 4 CML 5 CML 6 CML 7 CML 8 Phase B – Pre-Phase A – Phase A PD & TRL6 Concept Development Advanced Studies • Preliminary design  KDP-C • Validation via trades & cost estimates  KDP-B • Requirements defined  SRR • “Target” concept  KDP- A • Point-design Mission Study Report • Decadal Survey white papers, SMD initiation of a Pre-Project 12
    14. 14. JPL Innovation Foundry Accessing the Matrix. Managing the Environment. APPLYING EXPERTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 13
    15. 15. ¼ of the JPL populationJPL Innovation Foundry engages in proposals 27%, 2010 data = 50 Lab employees 13 provided institutional support 334 provided Program Office, Line, Review, or Service Support 1026 directly created proposals 14
    16. 16. A-Team focuses small, expert teamsJPL Innovation Foundry where the leverage is highest A-Team Concept team Synthesis Gate Team X Cost Team X Team X Heritage Incubation Concept Portfolio Gate • Open trade space Gate Gate Proposal • Frame key Gate questions • Analyze drivers • Derive and assess partials Fundamental Concept baseline engineered, costed, Step 1 baseline feasibility of one validated ready for proposal approach validated development quantitatively Trade space understood 1-3 reference Salient kernel design options documented synthesized CML 1 CML 2 CML 3 CML 4 CML 5 15
    17. 17. JPL Innovation Foundry
    18. 18. JPL Innovation Foundry
    19. 19. “Analytical fictions” innovated, “partials”JPL Innovation Foundry quantified, viable options synthesized Science Value Cost Risk • Avoid fixating on a point solution • Assess many architectures • Understand tradespace maneuverability 18
    20. 20. Concurrent engineering efficientlyJPL Innovation Foundry advances to CML 4 • Architectures • Space Missions • Flight Systems • Instruments 19
    21. 21. JPL Innovation Foundry
    22. 22. Upgraded concurrent engineering theaters based on experience of 103 studiesJPL Innovation Foundry 21
    23. 23. JPL Innovation Foundry Capturing the Wealth of Lessons Learned PRE-PROJECT PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES 22
    24. 24. Guidance for each concept elementJPL Innovation Foundry Technical Programmatic • Science Objectives & Requirements • Acquisition and Surveillance • Mission Development • Project Organization • Spacecraft/Instrument System Design • Schedules & Margins • Ground System Design • Cost Estimation & Risks • Technical Risk • Project Scope • Technology • Documentation • Inheritance • NEPA Compliance • Master Equipment Lists • Subsystem Make-Buy • Technical Margins • Work Breakdown Structure • Trade Studies • Testbeds, Models & Spares • Modeling & Simulation • Export Compliance • Launch Services • Mission Assurance Management • Planetary Protection • Verification & Validation 23
    25. 25. …organized in the progressiveJPL Innovation Foundry CML framework 24
    26. 26. …and Web-hosted for partner teamsJPL Innovation Foundry 25
    27. 27. JPL Innovation Foundry
    28. 28. Summary: JPL Innovation FoundryJPL Innovation Foundry is improving NASA mission formulation • Concepts (CML 1-6) – New tools for low maturity stages where leverage is highest – Seamless transitions through the stages of maturation • Campaigns (CML 5-6) – Hand-crafting of the pitch • Formulation skills – Excellence in more than technical dimensions • Knowledge management – Systematic leveraging of already vetted knowledge products 27
    29. 29. Dan McCleese, Director daniel.j.mccleese@jpl.nasa.gov Brent Sherwood, Manager brent.sherwood@jpl.nasa.govJPL Innovation Foundry

    ×