• Like
Charles.armstrong
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Charles.armstrong

  • 13,088 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
13,088
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Orion PDR Process - What in the World Happened? NASA PM Challenge 2010 Used with PermissionCharles ArmstrongNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationOrion VI&D Plans & Processes Managercharles.h.armstrong@nasa.gov281-244-6315Tony ByersLockheed Martin Space Systems CompanySystems Engineering – Program Integration Manageranthony.w.byers@lmco.com303-977-4389 1
  • 2. Agenda Project Orion• Orion PDR Management Challenges • Planning • Execution• Tenants of Operational Excellence• PDR Process• PDR Results• Key Lessons Learned• Tentative CDR Plan• Closing Remarks 2
  • 3. Management Challenges Project Orion• Planning Challenges • Develop and execute a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) process that ensures NASA’s next generation spacecraft can meet all mission objectives and satisfy requirements with acceptable risk • Develop a multi-tiered approach that ensures the integrated subsystems, modules and vehicle are reviewed to ensure the design approach is at a sufficient level of maturity to proceed to the detailed design phase. • Balance thoroughness and schedule. The desire to review every aspect of the design down to the lowest possible level must be balanced against the available time to execute the review as to not delay the development activities unnecessarily. • Balance inclusion and efficiency. Develop a process that ensures all stakeholders have an adequate time to participate and provide input helping to shape the design, ensure mission success, and ultimately provide a safe crew exploration vehicle. 3
  • 4. Management Challenges Project Orion• Execution Challenges • Communicate the expectations to a diverse 2000+ personnel organization consisting of NASA, prime contractor (LM), and many support contractors • Balance the desire to improve the design and need for a design baseline. From the time the PDR baseline is struck, a lot of potential energy develops to improve the requirements, architecture, design, and configuration. This energy must be managed to ensure that PDR products align as close as possible to the PDR baseline. • Monitor and control process execution throughout the duration of the effort 4
  • 5. Operational Excellence Project Orion• Teamwork – Created a joint NASA/LM PDR Integration Team (PIT) to ensure common expectations are communicated across the NASA, LM, and support contractor teams • Ensured key personnel from each Module and IPT were included on team • Enlisted the support of the Orion planning organizations• Communication – Focused on communicating early and often – Conducted a series of TIMs with each of the subsystem leads to develop common expectations and identify issues needing resolution prior to PDR – Instituted multiple statuses and forums targeting all stakeholders• Commitment – With the goal of “Get it right the 1st time”, the Orion Management team routinely stressed the importance of attaining the PDR level of design maturity – Management routinely communicated the PDR expectations and monitored status weekly –• Accountability – Each Subsystem Lead took ownership of their respective Subsystem Design Review preparation and execution – A detailed schedule was developed to manage the program DRD review and delivery – Detailed metrics were developed for tracking all deliverables by System and Subsystem
  • 6. Project OrionPDR Process 6
  • 7. PDR Process & Data Package Project Orion• PDR Definition – A technically-focused design review which demonstrates that the preliminary system, module and subsystem design of the Orion integrated vehicle, its concept of operations, associated processes and applicable technical plans meet all system requirements with acceptable risk and within cost and schedule constraints.• PDR Process – The PDR process included a series reviews which provide a solid foundation for determining if the current design is at PDR level of maturity. • 184 Technical Reviews • 104 Peer Reviews • 10 Combined Tech/Peer Reviews • 18 Subsystem Design Reviews • 1 System and Module Review • 8 RID Teams responsible for RID Screening & Disposition • 1 PDR Pre-Board • 1 PDR Board• PDR Data Package – 170 DRDs delivered and reviewed – 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs provided to NASA for comment
  • 8. PDR Objectives Project Orion• Demonstrate that the Orion Project’s design baseline meets all Constellation Program and Orion system requirements to the subsystem level and does so with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints• Ensure that all system requirements have been allocated to the component level, the requirements are complete, and flow down is adequate to verify system performance• Ensure all physical and functional interfaces for Orion system and subsystem design have been identified and defined• Demonstrate sufficient definition of integration and verification activities to allow the Project to proceed with detailed planning of test, integration, and the manufacturing of test articles• Confirm that verification method requirements have been developed to the subsystem level and are consistent with the requirements and the vehicle design• Demonstrate that the PDR vehicle configuration is a closed vehicle and within all specified margins• Demonstrate that the vehicle hazards and hazard control methods are identified and assessed, including safety features of the design and crew survival features of the vehicle 8
  • 9. PDR Objectives Project Orion• Establish the preliminary design, thus enabling the Project to baseline subsystem specifications• Ensure that technical and programmatic risks are identified, are categorized by criticality, and that risk mitigation plans are approved and are being managed• Ensure that the Project is meeting cost and schedule baselines and has the infrastructure necessary to support management and reporting of cost and schedule data• Show appropriate maturity in the proposed design approach to proceed to critical design• Establish the basis and a viable path for proceeding to the Critical Design Review (CDR) including interim milestones 9
  • 10. PDR Entry & Success Criteria Project Orion• Performed a detailed analysis and mapping of Entrance and Success Criteria • Orion is required to meet both NASA NPR 7123.1A and LM 2.1.6-T1-PgmMgt-1.2-P- C3 PDR Entrance and Success/Exit Criteria • Evaluated both sets of entrance and exit (success) criteria • Integrated into an “Orion” set of PDR Entrance and Success Criteria • Documented in CxP 72212 Orion PDR Process Plan • Mapped PDR Products/DRDs to criteria • Criteria reviewed by all NASA and LM Module/IPT Leads, Subsystem Leads, and key others prior to formal documentation in CxP 72212 • Criteria reviewed and approved by LM SSC Central Systems Engineering• NASA & LM IPTs developed a detailed self assessment against the entry and success criteria • Allowed team to better resolve issues prior to the PDR Board • Assisted program management in documenting open issues needing to be resolved post PDR• First evaluation of PDR Entry and Success Criteria occurred at the PDR Pre-Board • Final evaluation of the Success Criteria occured at the PDR Board 10
  • 11. CxP 72212 Orion PDR Plan Project Orion• Comprehensive PDR plan documented in CxP 72212 and placed under configuration control • All significant stakeholders participated in review of document prior to release • Formalized the overall PDR process• Documented the requirements and associated documentation baseline for PDR• Incorporated tailored NPR 7123.1A criteria into plan • Served as the primary method of documenting all agreements regarding method to meet the SSDR and PDR criteria• Used as a reference throughout the execution to ensure the process was adhered to 11
  • 12. Road to August 2009 PDR Project Orion 2008 2009 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Ares LC4 Results Final Drop 12/20 Remaining Ares LC4 Loads Analysis Update Ares LA4 Loads Analysis Data Dropped 1/23 1/30 Lunar Data Drop 8/14 8/31 (TBR) Orion LC-4 R&U Update Will be updated after Orion/Ares Coordination Orion Rev & Update Sizing / Subsystem FEMs LA4 FEM Develop Sizing / SS FEM LC5 FEM Develop Szg Orion Uncoupled Orion Uncoupled Orion Uncoupled Orion Uncoupled DAC-3 Initialization Loads Loads Update (Test Data Updates) 606E Closeout ERB (DAC-2 Loads + 6 wk Loads Update (LC-4, Landing) 2/24-27 PDR Loads LOC/LOM ERB Update for Landing, GN&C SSDR Subsystem Design Reviews Status Module Struct, Mech, & Sec Environments) MELs Pyro, & TPS 10/23 10/24 Midterm 606F Integrated Loads SWELs Closeout 7/8 T-008 SAP Complete MEL Update 9/29,30 ERB 606F Products ERB Complete ERB 606G T-009, T-010 DAC-3 DAC-3 POD Delivered 9/9 & 10/2 SBR ERB 11/19-20 12/22 Analysis Reports Due to 8/1 8/15 2/12-13 3/24 4/14 5/15 6/11&12 NASA KO PDR Board 6-wk Asmts & 7/13 7/24 8/31 DAC-2 Sys Integ DAC-3 Sys Integ DAC/PDR Planing SMR Pre-Board Integrated vehicle 10/29 Integrated vehicle Integrated vehicle products on ProjectLink T-009, T-010 DAC-2 products available products available 2 wk Sys & Mod 1 week prior to ERB Analysis Reports Due to NASA Presentations 8/31Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews S/C, Mod, & AV&SW Spec DRD Rev & RID All RIDs S/C & Module Spec (DAC-2) 12/5 (C&T & Mid-DAC-3) – 5/5 Dispositioned 7/7 S/C & Module Spec Development Sys Product Develop Final PDR DRDs Subsystem Spec Development delivered to NASA Subsystem IRD & ICD Development Subsystem Design and Databook Development 1-wk DRD Master Verification Plan Development Delivery Margin Drawing Release Ph 1 TIM #2 1/20-23 2/9-13 Ph 1 3/30-4/3 Ph 1 5/4-8 Ph 1 6/15-26 Ph 1 TIM #6 Delta CSERP Groundrules TIM 10/1 11/3-7 Ph 1 TIM #1 TIM #3 TIM #4 TIM #5 7/27-8/7 CSERP Review Safety & Mission Assurance Spiral Data Spiral Spiral Cradle Snapshot 8/15 C&T SS Review 12/4-5 Pkg Delivery Review Data Rev C&T SRR 10/29 2/28 Sys & Subsystems Cradle Snapshot 11/20 12/7-11 Board 1/22/10 Avionics & Software Activities AA-2 7/16 PA1 DD250 3/3 4/10 T&V Sys B/L Rev PTR2 EGSE DD250 2/11 CAIL PR 6/30 Test 12 Verification Activities and 12
  • 13. Orion PDR Process Project Orion Project Orion June July August Sep OctSubsystem Design 2-Wk SMR Prep 8/4 Board Dry-Reviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Decision Gate Runs Orion PDR PDR KO 7/13 7/21 8/10 Forward System & Daily Board Decision Gates Module Presentations RIDs Captured SMR Against Design DRDs Delivered RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored) RID Tool Open 7/7 PDR -45 7/31 TBD 4 wk DRD Review DRD Waterfall / Early Review (RID Creation & S (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) Sponsor) PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support Integ PIT War Room Starts 8/27 Team 8/10 NASA Screening NASA Team Concludes RID Screening NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Screening All RIDs receive product (Work disconnects with external stakeholders) Team owner or lead recommended (LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions) Disposition 8/17 Starts 8/3 Product Owner Recommend All RIDs Disposition Dispositioned 8/20 Starts Review Team 8/12 Disposition DRDs 8/31-9/1 PDR Board Redelivered Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to Proceed to DAC-4 NLT 2/1/10 Board 5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 14. Orion Subsystem Design Reviews Project Orion Project Orion June 2009 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 4 5 SSDR KO/ROE (2 ea.) 8 9 SSDR KO/ROE (2 ea.) 10 Chairs ROE (Makeup) 11 12 Chairs ROE (Makeup) Houston 2:00 PM MT 2:00 PM MT SCRAM Review Sacramento, CA LAS Jettison Motor SSDR DAC-3 Closeout ERB 15 16 17 18 19 Includes Denver Mechanisms SSDR Structures SSDR Sat 6/20 Denver Crew Systems SSDR Denver Wiring SSDR2 wk Approach Denver Denver Ends Passive Thermal Control SSDR Landing and Recovery System SSDR Sat 6/20 Denver Propulsion SSDR 22 23 24 25 26 Denver LAS focus 6/20 & 6/22 AM Structures SSDR Overflow Denver Environmental Control and Life Support SSDR Denver Avionics and Software SSDR Denver Denver Ends Electrical Power System SSDR & Voltage/Distributed Architecture Updates Thermal Protection System SSDR Sat 6/27 Promontory, Utah LAS Abort Motor SSDR 29 30 July 1 2 3 - Holiday Houston PDU Review Houston Pyrotechnics SSDR Elkton, MD LAS Attitude Control Motor SSDR GN&C SSDR Conducted 2/24-27 LAS SEIT, Avionics & Power SSDR Conducted 4/14-15
  • 15. RID Criteria & Ground Rules Project OrionCriteria• A design-related issue intended to document: • Inability of the preliminary design to meet requirements (e.g., design compliance issues) • Incomplete or incorrect requirement flow down or traceability • Incomplete or inadequate maturity for PDR (e.g., incomplete/inadequate trades or models) • Undefined or inadequately defined technical interfaces • Inconsistency between design, analysis, requirements, or operations concepts • Incorrect or inadequate verification methods in support of the preliminary design • Inconsistency with the primary characteristics that should factor into each design decision as identified in CxP 70000, Constellation Architecture Requirements Document, Section 3.1.2. These primary characteristics are: Safety and Mission Success, Programmatic Risk, Extensibility and Flexibility, and Life Cycle Cost • Unsafe design features • Unidentified or inadequately mitigated risk • Inconsistency with Project objectives 15
  • 16. RID Criteria & Ground Rules Project OrionGround Rules• RIDs can be written against RIDable documents or against any aspect of the Orion vehicle design and technical plans within the purview of the Orion Project • RIDs will be recommended for withdrawal if the initiator is identifying a deficiency that is out of scope of this review or does not meet the RID criteria listed above• An assertion via RID that a design feature is inconsistent or deficient with respect to the primary characteristics expressed in the Orion Requirements Baseline should be supported by rationale that provides a credible case for the existence of a more favorable alternative• Where possible, RIDs should be tied to functional or performance requirements or constraints• RIDs will also be recommended for withdrawal if the requestor is identifying an area of “forward work” • “Forward work” is defined as work that is necessary for successful completion of the Orion vehicle but not required to satisfy the success criteria for PDR• Lack of sufficient information is a basis for a RID only if the RID initiator has exhausted all reasonable means to obtain the information or if the information has not been made available as required by the entrance criteria 16
  • 17. RID Criteria & Ground Rules Project OrionGround Rules• Editorial RIDs will be demoted to comments and forwarded to the document developer as information at the end of the review• Initiators are expected to review the errata sheet associated with a specific DRD prior to reviewing the DRD and/or prior to entering a RID • RIDs are intended to identify design issues and are not intended to document known issues as documented in the errata • RIDs may be written if the errata description or details are insufficient to provide confidence that the issue has been addressed or will be addressed in the appropriate manner and timeframe 17
  • 18. What is a Good RID? Project Orion• What is a good RID? – A “new” design related issue – Accurately describes the design related issue consistent with the RID criteria – Provides the details of where the issue was found • For DRD related RIDs (section, page, etc) • For Architecture Element RIDs with no DRD referenced (chart, conversation, etc.) – Provides a sufficiently detailed recommended resolution – Stays within the scope of PDR expectations – For requirements, provides correct “from” language and recommends “to” language An issue that has not previously been identified.• What is a bad RID? – Incomplete issue identification – No recommended resolution – Recommended resolution of “fix this” – Editorial comment (spelling, grammar, etc.) – RID that expands on errata or duplicates a Pre-Declared RID – Post PDR level of maturity / unrealistic expectations – RID written against a baselined or reference document (Examples: SRD, S/C Spec) – RID entered by someone other than the original initiator without documenting the original initiator – RID written against a previously made project decision (VICB, CPCB, etc.) without new data or evidence to challenge the decision Don’t tell us something we already know!!!
  • 19. Project OrionPDR Results 19
  • 20. PDR Assessment Project Orion• Design Issues – A detailed pre-assessment was performed by each of the module prior to entering PDR – All known issues were presented at each SSDR and the SMR • No new significant issues surfaced during the reviews – Significant focus was applied to ensure known issues had agreed-to plans to proceed – Top issues contributing to non-green assessments • Mechanisms – FBC R&R – FBC Recontact, CM/SM R&R Maturity Parachute Architecture Study was underway prior to • LRS – FBC Recontact / Parachute Architecture & Testability entering PDR. Assessment concluded in October • TPS & Structures – Parachute Architecture Impacts to Baseline 2009. • EPS – 120 V Incorporation Driven by significant post SDR requirements changes • AV&SW – C&T Incorporation, BFCS Maturity • ECLS – ARS Suit Loop, Procurement Schedule Procurement schedules were being updated to align with • CM Prop – Procurement Schedule project funding profile • Pyro – Devices Dependent on Mechanism Maturity • LAS ACM – Production Motor Maturity• 18 Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs) executed successfully – Each SSDR assessed against a common set of entry and success criteria plus a joint set of NASA/LM agreed to objective evidence customized for each Subsystem – 59 Total Review Days & approximately 500 review participants• PDR executed successfully – Each module assessed against a common set of entry and success criteria; ITAs assessment integrated – 56 days of DRD review, 7 day System & Module review, 1 week pre-Board and a Board – Approximately 1200 reviewers • Project Management assessed PDR a success and authorized the program to proceed Yellow / Green to the detailed design phase • Assessment based on a Red, Yellow, Green scale
  • 21. PDR Data Package Delivery Project OrionAs of July 8, 2009 PDR Data Package • NASA/LM jointly assessed PDR deliverables to determine which DRDs were necessary to meet PDR expectations and satisfy criteria • PDR – • 146 Deliverable Documents • SSDR & PDR – • 26 Design & Data Books • Data Package Total • 172 Total PDR Documents • 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs provided to NASA for comment Waterfalled Review and Delivery • Managed via the PDR Integration PDR -45 days Team • Captured in a 2000+ line MS Project Schedule • Metrics generated & reported on a weekly basis • Deliveries culminated on 7/7/09, PDR-45 Days
  • 22. Action Item & RID Closure Project Orion SSDR Actions PDR RIDs • Detailed Action and RIDAV&SW 140 150 screening occurred LASCrew Systems 39 throughout the SSDR & CM 241ECLSS 49 PDR process SM 90EPS 97 • All actions and RIDsGN&C 26 Av&Pwr&Wire 444 dispositioned and closureLAS AM 60 38 Software aligned with project postLAS ACM 96 T&V, Fac, GSE 411 PDR work planLAS JM 60 AI&P 18LAS SE&I AVP 12 • All RIDs approved by PDRLRS 42 SR&QA 91 BoardMechanisms 56 566 SystemsPropulsion 150 • Project approved closure 33 Total 2049 plan implementedPTCPyro 26Structures 141 • Approximately 100,000 pages of design, process,TPS 20 and plan documentation reviewedWiring 14 • Included requirements, interface definition,Total 1061 verification details, general plans, etc.
  • 23. Project OrionKey Lessons Learned 23
  • 24. Key PDR Lessons Learned Project Orion• SSDRs – SSDRs executed in parallel and in a common location worked well • Key personnel were in the building and available and could easily bounce between reviews when needed – Focused review teams allowed the reviews to move at a sufficient pace while ensuring all significant information was reviewed to an adequate level • On-site review teams of 50 to 100 personnel is appropriate • Overflow rooms and remote participation were not an ideal way of participating in the on-site review – Data Packages consisted of the core information necessary to evaluate design maturity • Minimizing the data package to only those DRDs necessary to establish design maturity supported a streamlined review process – Early technical and peer reviews facilitated improved design awareness prior to the review – Need to strengthen Software integration into SSDRs • Evaluate what additional products need to be added to the SSDR Data Packages • Note software was addressed to level required for NPR 7123.1a (project wants additional focus for CDR) – Need to ensure adequate spacing between tech reviews and SSDRs to allow for sufficient time to close TR actions • Need SSDR co-chairs to review open TR actions prior to SSDRs – Transferring SSDR actions to RIDs created a dual paper trail that required unnecessary effort to resolve – SSDR Dry-runs need to be scheduled further in advance to allow subsystem team to make adjustments prior to the review – SSDR Caucuses were most effective when kept to a small attendance – SSDR color ratings took more time than expected given that issues were identified ahead of the SSDR
  • 25. Key PDR Lessons Learned Project Orion• PDR – Data Package Preparation, Delivery, & Review • Separate Technical and Peer Reviews were not the most efficient way to review DRDs – Peer Reviews were not viewed as where the detailed review occurs – Integrating Technical and Peer Reviews into a single review that meets the expectation of both reviews • Decouple DRDs not needed for design review from the design review – Review and accept these documents through NASA’s normal DRD acceptance process • Waterfalled delivery allows for early review of material prior to the face-to-face reviews – System & Module Review (SMR) • SMR value did not match level of effort required to prepare and execute – Most technical review and discussion occurred at the SSDRs – Weak in-person attendance • Need to change this review to an integrated vehicle review focusing on the integrate module and integrated stack design for CDR – Include Assembly, Integration & Production – Include Test & Verification – Pull the integrated analysis and design products and review them up-front prior to the SSDRs • Create a one-day CDR Kick-off that gives the requirements baseline, environments overview, etc. prior to the CDR SSDRs
  • 26. Key PDR Lessons Learned Project Orion• PDR – RID Tool, ProjectLink, Portal, and Wiki • Use one tool from the beginning of the process through completion – Minimizes duplication of issues and the overhead of transferring from one tool to another • Test the RID tool earlier in the planning process • Choose a RID tool that allows for a detailed closure process tracking • Portals and Wiki were a valuable resource to all reviewer – Assign a NASA IT person to the PIT for CDR • PDR hotline (outlook email box) served as a ongoing resource when reviewers did not know who to contact regarding a process or technical issue – RID Screening and Review Teams • IPTs who integrated the screening/review effort completed activities earlier and reduced iteration when dispositioning / resolving issues • Improved direction regarding “Approve” and “Approve w/mod” needs to be developed and communicated to review teams prior to start • Training needs to better prepare the reviewers for what to review the design against (Rqmts, Docs) – Consider adding an Orion familiarization to the training – Pre-Board and Board • Overall Board execution proceeded to plan – Increased Pre-Board time needed in CDR schedule if a similar number of RIDable documents are to be reviewed during CDR • Ensure RIDs dispositioned by pre-board or board are updated in the tool needs to occur • Do not push issue decisions to later forums (VICB, CPCB, etc.). Make the decisions prior to leaving the Board even if this extends the Board
  • 27. Project Orion Initial CDRTop-level Plan 27
  • 28. Top-level CDR Plan DRAFT Project OrionWeek 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Orion CDR Kickoff DRD Review RID Tool Opens RID Tool Closes Interactive Reading Room (DRDs, Drawings, Etc.) System Analysis Review (1 to 2 days) SSDRs Issue Identification (RID generation) SSDR Caucuses IVDR Integrated Vehicle Design Review RID Disposition (Product Owners & Leads) RID Review Teams Pre-Board Board DRAFT
  • 29. • All reviewers participate in the Orion CDR Kickoff (Orion Familiarization) to educate reviewers on the: • Design configuration Top-level CDR Plan • Coordinate what metrics are needed with RID/Action Tool prior to CDR • RID closure will be handled within IDE • Requirements baseline DRAFT • Errata and Pre-Declared RIDs all in one location (minimize number) • Environments baseline • Caucus serves the function of RID Screening Project Orion • Design Work products • Align tool with Process • Significant design issues 3 Week 1 Week 2 Week and their closure plans Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Orion CDR Kickoff DRD Review • Don’t duplicate SSDR actions and RIDs. RID Tool Opens • Issues captured in standard format throughout process (Action/RID Tool) RID Tool Closes • Standardize Etc.) Interactive Reading Room (DRDs, Drawings, process for handling cost/schedule issues • Ensure Action/RID template aligns with IDE tool • Summarize SSDR content that has been covered in component CDRs System Analysis Review (1 to 2 days) SSDRs Issue Identification (RID generation) • Replace SMR with an Integrated Vehicle Design Review SSDR Caucuses • Cover integrated module, integrated stack, AI&P, T&V, etc. IVDR Integrated Vehicle Design Review RID Disposition (Product Owners & Leads) RID Review Teams Pre-Board Board Notes from Orion Streamlining TIM 12/09 DRAFT
  • 30. Project OrionClosing Remarks 30
  • 31. PDR Supporting Documentation Project Orion• PDR Plan – CxP 72212 CxP Orion PDR Plan is available on PDR Wiki or PDR Portal/Dashboard• PDR Resources – PDR Wiki • Used as a resource to all Orion personnel and PDR stakeholders to communicate the current planning status • https://ice.exploration.nasa.gov/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=13828791 &maxRecentlyUpdatedPageCount=20 – PDR Portal • Used to formally provide all SSDR and PDR details, data package, and review results • Federal record of review • https://ice.exploration.nasa.gov/ice/site/cx/reviews_orion_pdr/
  • 32. PDR Integration Team Project OrionIn addition to the core PIT members above, there were members from each IPT, Module, Planning, and Administration incorporated into the planning effort and considered active PIT members.
  • 33. Project OrionQuestions? 33
  • 34. Project OrionBack-up 34
  • 35. Entrance Criteria Project Orion Orion Entrance Criteria (CxP 72212)1) Successful completion and close-out of SDR. All prior SDR Actions and RIDs have been closed, orapproved closure plan exists for those remaining open.2) PDR plan has been approved by the CPCB, which includes the PDR entrance and success criteria,RID/Action process, Board Members, stakeholders and schedule.3) All PDR applicable and supporting products have been delivered and made accessible for stakeholdersprior to review.4) Updated baselined documentation, as required.5) Preliminary design is established for each subsystem and supporting subsystem specifications are finalwith supporting analysis and trade-studies. Spacecraft, Module and Subsystem Specifications arecomplete and traceable. Subsystem specifications include Component definition. Componentspecifications delivery and review schedules have been developed and aligned with procurement strategy,including long-lead items. Preliminary software design and supporting subsystem specifications shouldinclude a complete definition of the software architecture and preliminary database design description (ifapplicable) which should include all analysis and data used for the development/maturation of the softwarearchitecture.6) Technology development plans are updated.7) The project risks and opportunities have been developed. Acceptable risk mitigation plans have beendeveloped in accordance with the Orion Risk Management Plan.8) Cost/schedule data are available to appropriate reviewers.9) Updated logistics documentation, including initial support equipment list.
  • 36. Entrance Criteria Project Orion Orion Entrance Criteria (CxP 72212)10) Applicable technical plans (e.g., technical performance measurement plan, contamination control plan,parts management plan, environments control plan, EMI/EMC control plan, producibility/manufacturabilityprogram plan, reliability program plan, quality assurance plan).11) Updated Applicable standards.12) Integrated CEV flight safety analysis (including software safety analyses) and other applicable S&MAanalysis of preliminary design (Failure Modes and Effect Analysis, flight system reliability andmaintainability analysis, Probabilistic Risk Assessment, etc.) are complete and requirements areimplemented in system, module, subsystem, and component specifications (component specifications aredeveloped per the acquisition strategy). All associated plans have been developed.13) Updated Engineering drawing tree.14) Preliminary Functional and physical interfaces are developed and documented in the Interface ControlDocuments (ICDs).15) Test and verification and validation plans are defined.16) Plans to respond to regulatory requirements (e.g., Environmental Impact Statement, as required)17) Disposal Plans defining safe disposal of assets.18) Technical resource utilization estimates and performance margins are updated.19) Preliminary limited life items list is updated (LLIL).20) Operational planning is proceeding to schedule.
  • 37. Success Criteria Project Orion Orion Success Criteria (CxP 72212)1) The Spacecraft, Module, and Subsystem Requirements, TPMs and any CxP-imposed requirements areagreed upon, finalized, stated clearly and are consistent with the preliminary design.2) The flow down of verifiable requirements to the subsystems and to the appropriate components arecomplete. An adequate plan exists for timely resolution of all open items. Requirements are traceable toOrion SRD, CxP IRDs and other applicable CxP requirements including any errata.3) System, module and subsystem preliminary designs are complete and meet requirements at anacceptable level of risk. All liens have been identified and closure plans developed.4) Technical interfaces are defined, deemed adequate, and are consistent with the overall technicalmaturity and provide an acceptable level of risk.5) Adequate spacecraft technical margins exist with respect to TPMs.6) Any required new technology has been developed to an adequate state of readiness or back-up optionsexist and are supported to make them a viable alternative.7) The project risks and opportunities are understood and have been credibly assessed. Appropriate riskmitigation plans for all top risks.8) Safety and mission assurance (e.g., safety, reliability, maintainability, quality, and EEE parts) have beenadequately addressed in preliminary designs and any applicable S&MA products (e.g., PRA, system safetyanalysis, and failure modes and effects analysis) have been reviewed and concurred.9) The operational concept is technically sound, is supported by the vehicle design, and includes (whereappropriate) human factors. Appropriate requirements identified by the ConOps have been flowed downincluding requirements for ConOps execution.10) Preliminary test and verification plans are updated. Manufacturing plans are developed.11) System costs are within targets.
  • 38. Product to Criteria Mapping Project Orion• Performed a detailed analysis and mapping of Entrance and Success Criteria • The PDR Data Package is mapped to the criteria and documented in Appendix C of CxP 72212 Orion PDR Process Plan
  • 39. Orion PDR rev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT Project Orion Project Orion Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs) June 18 Subsystem Reviews July August Sep OctSubsystem Design 2-Wk • 3 SSDRs Executed Prior to the 2-wk SSDRs 8/4 BoardReviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Dry- SMR Prep • GN&C SSDR Completed on 2/24-27 Decision Gate Runs Orion PDR PDR KO• LAS SEIT, Avionics & Power SSDR Completed on 4/14-15 7/13 • LAS Jettison Motor Completed on 6/8-10 7/21 8/10 Forward System & Daily Board Decision Gates Module • Helped iron out the process and allowed the team to take advantage of RIDs Captured Presentations SMR lessons learned Against Design • 13 SSDRs completed 2-wk set of SSDRs on 6/15-26 RID Tool Open • At any given time 4Close (all RIDs Sponsored) in parallel in the Lockheed Martin DRDs Delivered RID Tool 7/31 SSDRs were occurring 7/7 PDR -45 TBD Denver WB2 facility 2 remaining SSDRs completed the last week of June • 4 wk DRD Review DRD Waterfall / Early Review (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) • SSDR ProductsS (RID Creation & Sponsor) • 28 Design & Data Books Delivered & Reviewed • 23 Draft Subsystem Specs, 21 Subsystem IRDs, 21 Subsystem ICDs, and PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support Integ PIT War Room Starts 8/27 Team 12 Subsystem Volumes of MVPs Available for Comment 8/10 NASA Screening • 59 Total Review Days Team Concludes RID Screening NASA • Over 1,000 review participants includingreceive product NESC, SRB, NASA Crew NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Screening All RIDs support from Office, NASA Team owner or lead recommended (Work disconnects with external stakeholders) MOD, NASA Engineering, NASA S&MA, NASA Health & Medical, (LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions) Disposition Constellation, Orion Project, & LM Central Engineering 8/17 Redelivery date will be • 1,056 Action Items Generated Starts 8/3 Product Owner recommended on 8/21 based Recommend • All actions recorded in either the ConCERT RID Tool on number and complexity of All RIDs or LM IDE Disposition Dispositioned RIDs. 8/20 Starts 8/12 Review Team Disposition DRDs 8/31-9/1 PDR Board Redelivered Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to Proceed to DAC-4 NET 11/6 Board 5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 40. Orion PDR rev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT Project Orion Project Orion Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs) Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs) June 18 Subsystem Reviews July August Sep OctSubsystem Design 2-Wk Each SSDR assessedBoard 2-wk SSDRs set of entry and success criteria • 3 SSDRs Executed Prior to the 8/4 against a commonReviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Dry- SMRplus a joint set of Decision Gate agreed to objective evidence customized for Prep NASA/LM • GN&C SSDR Completed on 2/24-27 Runs Orion PDR each Subsystem (Assessed either Green, Yellow,on 4/14-15 or Red) PDR KO• LAS SEIT, Avionics & Power SSDR Completed 7/13 • LAS Jettison Motor Completed on 6/8-10 7/21 8/10 Forward Crew Systems LAS SEI, AVP System & Mechanisms Mechanisms Daily Board Decision Gates • Helped iron out the process and allowed the team to take advantage of Module Structures LAS ACM LAS ACM RIDs Captured AV & SW CM Prop SM Prop SM Prop lessons learned LAS AM LAS AM Presentations LAS JM SMR Wiring Wiring Against Design GN&C ECLS ECLS • 13 SSDRs completed 2-wk set of SSDRs on 6/15-26 Pyro LRS LRS EPS EPS PTC TPS DRDs Delivered Subsystem Criteria4Close (all RIDs Sponsored) in parallel in the Lockheed Martin RID Tool • At any given time SSDRs were occurring RID Tool Open 7/7 PDR -45 7/31 1. Requirements are complete and flowed to the appropriate TBD Denver WB2 facility products. Subsystem specifications are updated. 2. Subsystem design is complete to a level of detail that is 2 remaining SSDRs completed the last week of June • 4 wk DRD Review sufficient to demonstrate that all requirements are expected to DRD Waterfall / Early Review (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) • SSDR ProductsS be met at an acceptable level of risk. Subsystem preliminary (RID Creation & design baseline is complete and does not exceed subsystem Sponsor) mass and• Design & Data Books Delivered & Reviewed power allocations. Subsystem preliminary design includes hardware and software considerations. Test and PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support Subsystem Specs, are verification plans are defined. Technical interfaces Subsystem IRDs, Subsystem ICDs, and Subsystem • Draft Integ PIT War Room Starts 8/27 Team defined, deemed adequate, and are consistent with the Volumesatof MVPs Available for Comment overall technical maturity an acceptable level of risk. 8/10 NASA Screening Resolution plans for any non-compliance have been including support from NESC, SRB, NASA Crew • Over 1,000 review participants Concludes RID Screening developed. NASA Team 3. The Office, NASA opportunities are understood and RIDs receive product LM Orion, & LM Central subsystem risks and MOD, NASA Engineering, NASA Orion, NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Screening All (Work disconnects with externalbeen credibly assessed. Acceptable risk mitigation owner or lead recommended have Engineering where applicable. stakeholders) plans have been developed Team • preliminary subsystem design is reliable and safe forDisposition (LM SEIT led SME team available 4. The _________ Action Items Generated to answer questions) use. 8/17 Reliability and safety analyses of the preliminary design have Redelivery date will be • _____ 8/3 requirements flowed down “Pre-declared RIDs” Actions classified as to been performed and resulting Starts Product Owner recommended on 8/21 based • _____ Actions Recommend as “Complete Prior to PDR”on number and complexity of the system, module, and subsystem. Preliminary plans for classified tests, analyses, demonstrations, and Disposition verify inspections will All RIDs the reliability_____ Actions classifiedReliability, Dispositioned RIDs. • and safety of the subsystem. Safety, as “Forward Work” and Quality Assurance (SR&QA) has been adequately 8/20 addressed in preliminary designs, and applicable SR&QA the ConCERT RID Tool or LM IDE • All actions recorded in either Starts 8/12 products (e.g., PRA, system safety hazard analysis, and Team Review Disposition failure modes and effects analysis) satisfy PDR product maturation requirements (e.g. Phase 1 Safety Review criteria) DRDs 5. Test, verification and manufacturing planning are underway. 8/31-9/1 PDR Board Redelivered Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to Proceed to DAC-4 NET 11/6 Board 5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 41. Orion PDR rev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT Project Orion Project Orion June Data Requirements DescriptionAugust Review and Waterfall July (DRD) Sep OctSubsystem Design 2-Wk 8/4 BoardReviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Dry- SMR Prep PDR Data Package Decision Gate Runs Orion PDR • NASA/LM jointly assessed PDR deliverables to determine PDR KO which DRDs were System & necessary to meet PDR expectations and satisfy criteria 7/13 7/21 8/10 Forward Daily Board Decision Gates Module • PDR – RIDs Captured Presentations SMR146 Deliverable Documents • Against Design (Includes multiple volumes of specific DRDs, i.e. MVP, Specs, IRDs) DRDs Delivered • SSDR & PDR – Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored) RID RID Tool Open 7/7 PDR -45 7/31 TBD • 26 Design & Data Books 4 wk DataReview • DRD Package Total DRD Waterfall / Early Review (RID Creation Total PDR Documents • 172 & S (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) Sponsor) 145 RIDable Documents (listed on PDR Portal) • PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support 12 Commentable Documents • Integ PIT War Room Team Starts 8/27 17 DRDs reviewed through NASA DRD Review Process Early • 8/10 NASA Screening (2 Documents Redelivered Prior to 7/7) Team Concludes RID Screening NASA • 53 “DraftsScreening NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Available” DRDsAll RIDs receive product for comment provided to NASA • Total SSDR and PDR Data Package consisted of nearly 100,000 pages of (Work disconnects with external stakeholders) Team owner or lead recommended Disposition (LM SEIT led SME team available to answer requirements, interface definition, verification details, general plans, and questions) 8/17 Redelivery date will be supporting design detail Starts 8/3 Product Owner recommended on 8/21 based Recommend All RIDs on number and complexity of Disposition Dispositioned RIDs. Waterfalled Review and Delivery 8/20 • Managed via the PDR Integration Team Starts 8/12 Review Team • Captured in a 2000+ line MS Project Schedule Disposition • Included Tech Reviews, Peer Reviews, C&DM Processing, and Delivery 8/31-9/1 PDR Board DRDs Redelivered • Metrics generated on a weekly basis NET 11/6 Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to Proceed to DAC-4 • Reported to Management team through various forums Board 4 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with 7/7/09, PDR-45 Days • Deliveries culminated on completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 42. Orion PDR rev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT Project Orion Project Orion June Data Requirements DescriptionAugust Review and Waterfall July (DRD) Sep OctSubsystem Design 2-Wk Data Requirements Description (DRD) Review and Waterfall 8/4 BoardReviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Dry- SMR Prep PDR Data Package Decision Gate Runs Orion PDR PDR Data Packageassessed PDR deliverables to determine which DRDs were • NASA/LM jointly PDR KO • 8th, 2009 7/13 Metrics Summary – July 8/10 Forward and satisfy criteria necessary to meet PDR expectations 7/21 System & Daily Board Decision Gates Module • PDR – RIDs Captured Presentations SMR146 Deliverable Documents • Against Design (Includes multiple volumes of specific DRDs, i.e. MVP, Specs, IRDs) DRDs Delivered • SSDR & PDR – Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored) RID RID Tool Open 7/7 PDR -45 7/31 TBD • 26 Design & Data Books 4 wk DataReview • DRD Package Total DRD Waterfall / Early Review (RID Creation Total PDR Documents • 172 & S (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) Sponsor) 145 RIDable Documents (listed on PDR Portal) • PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support 12 Commentable Documents • Integ PIT War Room Team Starts 8/27 17 DRDs reviewed through NASA DRD Review Process Early • 8/10 NASA Screening (2 Documents Redelivered Prior to 7/7) Team Concludes RID Screening NASA • 53 “DraftsScreening NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Available” DRDsAll RIDs receive product for comment provided to NASA (Work disconnects with external stakeholders) and PDR Data Package consisted of nearly 100,000 pages of • Total SSDR Team owner or lead recommended requirements, interface definition,Disposition (LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions) verification details, general plans, and supporting 8/17 Redelivery date will be design Starts 8/3 detail Product Owner recommended on 8/21 based Recommend All RIDs on number and complexity of Disposition Dispositioned RIDs. Waterfalled Review and Delivery 8/20 • Managed via the PDR Integration Team Starts 8/12 Review Team • Captured in a 2000+ line MS Project Schedule Disposition • Included Tech Reviews, Peer Reviews, C&DM Processing, and Delivery 8/31-9/1 PDR Board DRDs Redelivered • Metrics generated on a weekly basis NET 11/6 Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to Proceed to DAC-4 • Reported to Management team through various forums Board 4 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with 7/7/09, PDR-45 Days • Deliveries culminated on completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 43. Orion PDR rev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT Project Orion Project Orion June July August Sep OctSubsystem Design 2-Wk 8/4 Board Dry- SMR PrepReviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Decision Gate Runs Orion PDR PDR KO System & Module Review (SMR) 7/13 7/21 8/10 Forward System & Daily Board Decision Gates Module Presentations RIDs Capturedpurpose was to kick off the Orion Preliminary Design Review The SMR Against Design to provide a detailed overview of the DAC-3 close-out (606G) and DRDs Delivered RID Tool Closeconfiguration and vehicle (all RIDs Sponsored) system architecture. The goals of SMR RID Tool Open 7/7 PDR -45 7/31 were to provide: TBD • Common understanding of the system architecture and 4 wk DRD Review DRD Waterfall / Early Review (RID Creation & PDR technical baseline S (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) • Common understanding of ground systems and operations Sponsor) Integ requirements and plans PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support PIT•War Room Common understanding of flight operations by mission Starts 8/27 Team phase 8/10 NASA Screening NASA Team Concludes RID Screening • Status on major open system, module, and subsystem NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Screening All RIDs receive product issuesowner or lead recommended (Work disconnects with external stakeholders) Team (LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions) • Clarification of what documents are available at PDR and Disposition 8/17 the applicable NASA documents, by version, usedbe Redelivery date will in Starts 8/3 Product Owner recommended on 8/21 based Recommend developing theRIDs Requirements Document (DRDs) All Data on number and complexity of • RID criteria and ground rules Disposition Dispositioned RIDs. 8/20 Starts 8/12 • 7 Day Review Review Team Disposition • Participants included NESC, SRB, NASA Crew Office, DRDs 8/31-9/1 PDR Board NASA MOD, NASA Engineering, NASA S&MA, NASA Redelivered Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to ProceedOrion Project, & LM NET 11/6 Health & Medical, Constellation, to DAC-4 Board 5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel Central Engineering with completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 44. Orion PDR rev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT Project Orion Project Orion June July August Sep OctSubsystem Design 2-Wk 8/4 Board Dry- SMR PrepReviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Decision Gate Runs Orion PDR PDR KO Documentation Review 7/13 7/21 8/10 Forward System & Daily Board Decision Gates Module RID and Comment Generation Presentations RIDs Captured SMR Against Design Written Against • RIDs DRDs Delivered RID Tool Close (all RIDsDocuments • 145 RIDable Sponsored) RID Tool Open 7/7 PDR -45 7/31 • Architecture Elements (IPTs, Modules, Subsystems) TBD • All PDR Related Presentation Material 4 wk DRD Review • Comments Written Against DRD Waterfall / Early Review (RID Creation & S (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) Sponsor) • 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs provided to NASA for comment • 1200+ Reviewers (Initiators & Sponsors) Participated in Review of PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support Integ Team Documentation PIT War Room Starts 8/27 • Detailed metrics Screeningprovided in the RID Metrics & Reclama Status 8/10 NASA will be portion Team Concludes RID Screening NASA of the Board NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Screening All RIDs receive product (Work disconnects with external stakeholders) Team owner or lead recommended (LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions) Training Disposition • Completed 128/17 Training Sessions RID Focusing on RID Intiation and Redelivery date will be Product Owner recommended on 8/21 based Starts 8/3 Sponsorship Recommend All RIDs on number and complexity of • RID Training Package Located on PDR Wiki and PDR Portal Disposition Dispositioned RIDs. (See link below) 8/20 Starts 8/12 Review Team Data PackageDisposition Access DRDs • NASA ICE PDR Portal 8/31-9/1 PDR Board Redelivered • https://ice.exploration.nasa.gov/ice/site/cx/reviews_orion_pdr/ 11/6 Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to Proceed to DAC-4 NET Board 4 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 45. Orion PDR rev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT Project Orion Project Orion RID Review and Disposition June July August Sep Oct • Detailed multi-level approach to RID review andSubsystem Design 2-Wk SMR Prep 8/4 Board disposition.Reviews (SSDRs) SSDRs Dry- Decision Gate Runs Orion PDR • Process included initiators, sponsors, IPT leads, PDR KO subsystem leads, systems engineering, and project 7/13 7/21 8/10 Forward System & management Daily Board Decision Gates Module Presentations RIDs Captured SMR Against Design DRDs Delivered RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored) RID Tool Open 7/7 PDR -45 7/31 TBD 4 wk DRD Review DRD Waterfall / Early Review (RID Creation & S (Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews) Sponsor) PIT Lead with Module/IPT Support Integ PIT War Room Starts 8/27 Team 8/10 NASA Screening NASA Team Concludes RID Screening NASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs Screening All RIDs receive product (Work disconnects with external stakeholders) Team owner or lead recommended (LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions) Disposition 8/17 Redelivery date will be Starts 8/3 Product Owner recommended on 8/21 based Recommend All RIDs on number and complexity of Disposition Dispositioned RIDs. 8/20 Starts 8/12 Review Team Disposition DRDs 8/31-9/1 PDR Board Redelivered Starts 8/17 Pre Decision to Proceed to DAC-4 NET 11/6 Board 5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition DRD Update & Redeliver (Type 1 + Final Type 2)
  • 46. Subsystem Design Reviews Project Orion• Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs) provided the Orion stakeholders the opportunity to review each subsystem’s preliminary design • Products reviewed at SSDRs provided objective evidence that the preliminary subsystem design meets requirements with acceptable risk • Additional Objectives included: • Reviewing the preliminary design as documented in the technical design products for each subsystem • Participating in a face-to-face open forum, raising issues/concerns, answering questions or clarifying design details • Providing forward plans for significant issues from preceding reviews • Demonstrating horizontal integration with other subsystems • Reviewing the design against functional and performance specifications and ground and mission operability characteristics • Evaluating the technical adequacy and maturity of design • Ensuring correct design options have been selected • Ensuring interfaces have been identified and defined • Reviewing the verification approach • Reviewing associated risks and risk management strategies • Evaluating the Subsystem readiness to proceed to PDR
  • 47. System & Module Review (SMR) Project Orion• The purpose of the System & Module Review (SMR) was to kick off the Orion Preliminary Design Review and to provide a detailed overview of the DAC-3 close-out (606G) vehicle configuration and system architecture. The goals of SMR were to provide: • Common understanding of the system architecture and PDR technical baseline • Common understanding of ground systems and operations requirements and plans • Common understanding of flight operations by mission phase • Status on major open system, module, and subsystem issues • Clarification of what documents are available at PDR and the applicable NASA documents, by version, used in developing the Data Requirements Document (DRDs) • RID criteria and ground rules 47
  • 48. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Project Orion DRAFT
  • 49. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Initiators• RIDs can be written against a DRD or against an architectural element (i.e. CM Prop). When writing a RID against an Architectural Element a reference to the document, drawing, or presentation that triggered the concern must be included in the “Other Affected Documents” field.Roles & Responsibilities• Review PDR products and document issues in the RID Tool• Respond to dispositions (agree/disagree) provided by the Screening Team, Product Owner, Review Team Leads, and/or Pre-Board (within 2 working days)• Submit reclamas against RID dispositions to the next higher level in the process, if an agreement cannot be met regarding the recommended disposition (including the Sponsor level)• Prepare presentation information, as needed, for RIDs reclama’d to the Pre-Board and/or Board level
  • 50. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Sponsors• A technically cognizant manager knowledgeable of the Orion design.• Sponsors represent Projects, Directorates, and Functional Areas.Roles & Responsibilities• The Sponsor reviews all RIDs from their organization’s RID Initiators prior to submitting the RID to the Orion Project.• The Sponsor will first review the RID to ensure that it meets the appropriate RID Criteria.• If the RID Criteria are not met or it is out of scope of this review, then it is expected that the Sponsor will request withdraw or ask the RID Initiator to modify the RID appropriately so that it meets the RID Criteria.• Next the Sponsor should determine if the RID is representative of their organization’s position on the RID issue. If it is not, then it is expected that the Sponsor will request withdraw or ask the RID Initiator to modify the RID appropriately.• If the Initiator is not available to reclama or defend their RID, the Sponsor has the authority to act on behalf of the Initiator. DRAFT
  • 51. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Integration TeamMembers • Lead by the PDR Integration Team (MRI, PIT will act as super users in the Tool) • Reps from IPTs • Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• Roles & Responsibilities• Triage all RIDs to appropriate Screening Teams (performed outside the RID tool)• Integration team will download to a spreadsheet and flag screening/review teams to ensure all RIDs are bucketed correctly.• Ensure that RIDs are complete and not missing relevant/key info• Scan every RID to ensure proper Screening , Product Owner, and Review Team mapping • For example, determine if RIDs against specs go to Requirements Team or the Module Teams • Ensure the RIDs are assigned to proper technical authority (resource owner) for disposition• Ensure RIDs that need horizontal integration have been addressed. • Increase coordination on hot issues that span multiple team areas by flagging RIDs that will have to be transferred between Screening teams DRAFT
  • 52. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Integration Team Integration Team (Continued)Members Roles & Responsibilities (cont.) • Lead by the PDR Integration Team • Flag RIDs that need coordination from multiple (MRI, PIT will act as super users in Screening and Review Teams the Tool) • Flag RIDs that need to be merged • Reps from IPTs • Upon integration team direction, MRI will merge • Relevant subsystem experts, as required per the RIDs team • Merge duplicate RIDs to reduce work load on Review Teams• Roles & Responsibilities • Super users will move RIDs around “informally” as• Triage all RIDs to appropriate Screening Teams needed (performed outside the RID tool) • While Screening/Review Teams are meeting, team• Integration team will download to a spreadsheet and will transition to “War Room Mode” flag screening/review teams to ensure all RIDs are • Team will help manage RID review schedules across bucketed correctly. review teams• Ensure that RIDs are complete and not missing relevant/key info Schedule• Scan every RID to ensure proper Screening , • Early meeting(s) during the week of July 27-30 Product Owner, and Review Team mapping • Daily meetings starting at 8:30 AM CT (Go until • For example, determine if RIDs against specs go we have finished what could be processed) to Requirements Team or the Module Teams • Target 3-4 Aug 09 in Houston for wrap-up of RIDs • Ensure the RIDs are assigned to proper technical dropped on final days prior to 7/31 authority (resource owner) for disposition • Review of integrated RIDs requiring F2F• Ensure RIDs that need horizontal integration have discussion been addressed. • Integration team will transition to a full time effort • Increase coordination on hot issues that span lead by the PIT in parallel to the screening and multiple team areas by flagging RIDs that will review teams. (War Room Mode) have to be transferred between Screening teams DRAFT
  • 53. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Integration Team Integration Team (Continued Integration Team (Continued)Members Roles & Responsibilities (cont.) • Lead by the PDR Integration Team • Location that need coordination from multiple Flag RIDs • Houston, and Review will act as super users in (MRI, PIT Screening Space ParkTeams the Tool) • Flag RIDs that need to be merged • Reps from IPTs Procedures Team Logistics and team direction, MRI will merge • Upon integration • Relevant subsystem experts, as required per • MRI will assist in giving each team a .xls export of the RIDs team all of theduplicate RIDs to reduce work load on • Merge RIDs in their area • Teams will scan every RID assigned to their Review Teams• Roles & Responsibilities area Screening/Review Team around “informally” as • Super users will move RIDs• Triage all RIDswillappropriate Screening TeamsRID • Mini-teams to be created if the volume of needed (performed outside the RID tool) throughput is significant • While Screening/Review Teams are meeting, team• Integrationateam willcheck off that a spreadsheet and • Assign POC to downloadMode” to every RID was will transition to “War Room flag screening/review teams to ensure all RIDs are scanned (PIT, MRI) • Team will help manage RID review schedules across bucketed correctly. • Teams will flag any RID that needs to be re-assigned review teams• Ensure that RIDs are complete and not missing or merged relevant/key info Schedule re-assign flagged RIDs in the ConCERT RID • MRI will• Scan every RID to ensure proper Screening , Tool • Early meeting(s) during the week of July 27-30 Product Owner, and Review Team mapping • Daily meetings starting at 8:30 AM CT (Go until RIDwe have finished what if RIDsbe processed) go • For example, determine Tool Procedures could against specs to Requirements Team orbe “invisible” to the RID the Module Teams • • The integration team will Target 3-4 Aug 09 in Houston for wrap-up of RIDs • Tool Ensure the RIDs are assigned to proper technical dropped on final days prior to 7/31 • PIT and MRI integrated RIDsfor disposition authority (resource owner) • Review of Super Users will move RIDs around as requiring F2F• Ensure RIDs that need horizontal integration have needed discussion been addressed. • Integration team will transition to a full time effort • Increase coordination on hot issues that span lead by the PIT in parallel to the screening and multiple team areas by flagging RIDs that will review teams. (War Room Mode) have to be transferred between Screening teams DRAFT
  • 54. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Screening TeamsMembers• Team Leads (NASA IPT/Mod Lead)• Reps from IPTs as required (T&V, SR&QA, Requirements, Vehicle, etc.)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• LM Focus team assigns 1 to 2 people per team to support• PIT and MRIRoles and Responsibilities• Check that RIDs meet RID Criteria and screen for quality• Assign recommended disposition to each RID • “Recommend Withdraw” or “Approve with Mod” • Communicate with RID initiator as necessary • “Recommend Approve” indicates a good RID and passes on to LM• Merge duplicate RIDs• Clarify poor RIDs before they are elevated to the Product Owner/Review Team• Flag RIDs on subjects that have already been decided at CPCB, ERB, etc (Best effort) DRAFT
  • 55. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Screening Teams Screening Teams (Continued)Members Roles and Responsibilities• Team Leads (NASA IPT/Mod Lead) • Screening Team should attempt to dialogue with• Reps from IPTs as required (T&V, SR&QA, initiator if disposition is other than straight Approve Requirements, Vehicle, etc.) in order to clarify intent and streamline later• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team disposition and review team function (if this bogs us• LM Focus team assigns 1 to 2 people per team to down too much we may need to modify) support • If a large number of RIDs are assigned to a Screening• PIT and MRI Team, the Lead can assign team members a set of RIDs to screen based on subject and experts neededRoles and Responsibilities • Team Members will recommend disposition to• Check that RIDs meet RID Criteria and screen for Screening Team Lead quality • Can recommend transfer to another Screening Team• Assign recommended disposition to each RID • MRI will work the tool• “Recommend Withdraw” or “Approve with Mod” • Merge parent/child RIDs in the ConCERT RID Tool• Communicate with RID initiator as necessary • Input recommend disposition in the ConCERT RID• “Recommend Approve” indicates a good RID and passes on to LM Schedule• Merge duplicate RIDs • Planned for August 3-10• Clarify poor RIDs before they are elevated to the • May begin meeting and screening RIDs during the Product Owner/Review Team week of 27-31 July 09 at discretion of screening team• Flag RIDs on subjects that have already been • RID Schedule and Priority decided at CPCB, ERB, etc (Best effort) • Pre-Declared RIDs, As RIDs are sponsored, As team is available • Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to determine how much meeting time is required DRAFT
  • 56. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Screening Teams Screening Teams Screening Teams (Continued)Members Roles and Responsibilities• Team Leads (NASA IPT/Mod Lead) Location • Screening Team should attempt to dialogue with• Reps from IPTs as required (T&V, SR&QA, • Houston, Space Park initiator if disposition is other than straight Approve Requirements, Vehicle, etc.)for SM and Requirements in Glenn to clarify intent and streamline later • order Research Center• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team disposition and review LAS function (if this bogs us • MSFC, Huntsville for team• LM Focus team assigns 1 to 2 people per team to down too much we may need to modify) support RID Tool Procedures • If a large number of RIDs are assigned to a Screening• PIT and MRI work the tool, with PIT support as needed • MRI will Team, the Lead can assign team members a set of RIDs to screen based on disposition and comments in • Assign recommended subject and experts neededRoles“Review” Team field and Responsibilities • Team Members will recommend disposition to• Check that RIDs meet RID Criteria and stamp to • Add a date and “Screening Team” screen for Screening Team Lead quality comments • Can recommend transfer to another Screening Team• Assign recommended disposition to each RIDor • MRI disposition is “Recommend Withdraw” • If will work the tool• “Recommend w/ Mod” “Approve Withdraw” or “Approve with Mod” • Merge parent/child RIDs in the ConCERT RID Tool• Communicate with RID initiator as necessary • Input out recommended disposition ConCERT RID • Fill recommend disposition in the and comments• “Recommend Approve” indicates a good RID and field passes on to LM the initiator using the feature in the tool Scheduleback to • Send• Merge disposition is “Approve” or passing a RID up to • If duplicate RIDs • Planned for August 3-10• Clarify poor RIDs before they are elevated to the • May begin level the next meeting and screening RIDs during the Product Owner/Review Team week out recommended disposition and comments • Fill of 27-31 July 09 at discretion of screening team• Flag RIDs on subjects that have already been field • RID Schedule and Priority decidedNOT USE ACTIONS (Best effort) (i.e. Send to • •DO at CPCB, ERB, etc IN THE TOOL Pre-Declared RIDs, As RIDs are sponsored, As Initiator or Send to Next Review Level) team is available • •Instead, transfer the RID to the appropriate Review Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to Team determine how much meeting time is required DRAFT
  • 57. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Product Owner• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel• When a RID is written against a document, the product owner is the DRD author• When a RID is written against an Architectural Element, the product owner is the applicable lead (System, Module, or Subsystem)Definition• Product owner is responsible for developing proposed disposition (RID impacts and recommendations)• Assignment of RIDs to Product Owner validated/reassigned as needed (by the integration team) • DRD POC is the Book Author • Architecture Element POC is the Subsystem Lead• LM PIT for coordination and help with the RID tool, as needed• NASA POCs will help facilitate disposition with initiators, as applicableRoles and Responsibilities• Review the content of the RID, including recommended disposition DRAFT
  • 58. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Product Owner Product Owner• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel Roles and Responsibilities (Cont.)• When a RID is written against a document, the • Coordinate with appropriate product teams/SPTs as product owner is the DRD changes, changes to design necessary (requirement author• When a RIDdesign impacts, schedule impacts, and baseline, is written against an Architectural Element, the product owner is the applicable lead cost impacts) (System, Module,impacts and propose recommended • Assess design or Subsystem) solutionDefinition • Make initial determination of whether the RID is• Product owner is responsible for developing funded and/or in-scope proposed disposition (RID impacts and • Identify if there is a schedule impact. If so, recommendations) characterize believed impact.• Assignment of there to a cost impact • Identify if RIDs is Product Owner validated/reassigned as needed (by to determine if a • Elevate to IPT Management the integration team) LCC is required • DRD POC is the Book Author to clarify issues • Coordinate with RID Initiator • Enter proposed disposition is review by Review • Architecture Element POC forthe Subsystem Lead Team (See Product Owner Guidance chart)• LM • NOTE: Product Owner does not give an “official” PIT for coordination and help with the RID tool, as needed disposition in the tool, nor does their disposition• NASA POCs will help facilitate disposition with get to be reclama’d by the initiator initiators, as applicable NoteRoles and Responsibilities Product Owners are not required to contact the RID• Review the content of the RID, disposition. However, it initiator when recommending a including recommended disposition further clarification is needed is recommended that when the Product Owner contact the Initiator for additional dialogue. DRAFT
  • 59. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Product Owner Product Owner Product Owner• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel Roles and Responsibilities (Cont.)• Schedule When a RID is written against a document, the • Coordinate with appropriate product teams/SPTs as product owner is the DRD changes, changesfollows • Begin RID recommended disposition as to design necessary (requirement author• When a RIDdesign impacts,Now Architectural and • Pre-declared RIDs – schedule impacts, baseline, is written against an Element, the product – As soon as applicable lead has cost impacts) RIDs owner is the Screening Team • All other • Assess design and Subsystem) assessed or passed along (System, Module,impacts and propose recommended • Product Owner comments are needed by August 17 solutionDefinition in parallel with the of whether the RID teams • Make initial determination Screening/Review is • Runs• Product query theresponsible for developing fundedowner is RID Tool for RIDs in their functional • May and/or in-scope proposed disposition 7 a schedule impact. If so, area starting July • Identify if there is(RID impacts and recommendations) characterize believed impact. Location if RIDs is Product Owner• Assignment of there to a cost impact • Identify • LM•personnel in Houston, TX or Denver, CO validated/reassigned as needed (by to determine if a Elevate to IPT Management the integration • Coordination with RID Initiators will be virtual team) LCC is required • DRD POC is the Book Author to clarify issues • Coordinate with RID Initiator •Procedures Element POC forthe Subsystem Architecture disposition is review by Review • Enter proposed • Lead ConCERT RID tool will automatically assign RID to Team (See Product Owner Guidance chart) the appropriate DRD and help with the RID tool, PIT for coordination Owner• LM • NOTE: Product Owner does not give an “official” as disposition in the tool, nor does with the relevant • needed Owner should coordinate their disposition Product• NASA POCs will help in LMCO disposition with technical experts facilitate initiator get to be reclama’d by the initiators, asOwner should comment on whether the RID • Product applicable Note in-scope or not isRoles and Responsibilities their to contact the RID Product Owners are inputs • Product Owner not required recommended disposition• Review the content of the RID, disposition. However, it initiator when recommending a including recommended disposition further clarification is needed is recommended that when the Product Owner contact the Initiator for additional dialogue. DRAFT
  • 60. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Product Owner Product Owner Product Owner Product Owner• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel Roles and Responsibilities (Cont.) Schedule• When a RID is written against a document, the • Coordinate with appropriate product teams/SPTs as product Tool (requirement changes, changesfollows RID owner Procedures necessary recommended disposition as to design • Begin RID is the DRD author • • a RID is written against an Architectural The Product Owner does not put in an “official”• When Pre-declared RIDs – Now baseline, design impacts, schedule impacts, and Element, the product – Astool the applicable lead has • All other into the soon disposition cost impacts) RIDs owner is as Screening Team (System,The RID and Subsystem) reclama the Product assessed Initiator cannot • design or passed along • Assess Module,impacts and propose recommended Owner comments • Product Owner comments are needed by August 17 solutionDefinition in parallel with the of whether the RID teamsthe • Runs Product Owner inputs their comments into • The • Make initial determination Screening/Review is• Product query thefield Tool forfor developing appropriate RID fundedowner is responsible RIDs in their functional • May and/or in-scope proposedReviewJulyis(RID impacts ProductIf so, area starting Team will use the and • The disposition • Identify if there 7 a schedule impact. Owner recommendations) recommendations comments and characterize believed impact.• Assignment of there is a costinclude the Location if RIDs should impact • Product Ownerto Product Owner following • Identify • LM•personnel in their comments:Denver, CO information in Houston, TX or the integration validated/reassigned as needed (by to determine if a Elevate to IPT Management In Scope: Y or N team) • LCC is required Initiators will be virtual • Coordination with RID • Schedule Impact: Y or N • DRD POC is the Book Author to clarify issues • Coordinate with RID Initiator • Cost Impact: Y or N • •Procedures Element POC forthe Subsystem Enter proposed disposition is review by Review Architecture • Lead ConCERT RID tool will automatically assign RID to Team (See Product Owner Guidance chart) the appropriate DRD and help with the RID tool, PIT for coordination Owner• LM • NOTE: Product Owner does not give an “official” as disposition in the tool, nor does with the relevant • needed Owner should coordinate their disposition Product• NASA POCs will help in LMCO disposition with technical experts facilitate initiator get to be reclama’d by the initiators, asOwner should comment on whether the RID • Product applicable Note in-scope or not isRoles and Responsibilities their to contact the RID Product Owners are inputs • Product Owner not required recommended disposition• Review the content of the RID, disposition. However, it initiator when recommending a including recommended disposition further clarification is needed is recommended that when the Product Owner contact the Initiator for additional dialogue. DRAFT
  • 61. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Review TeamsMembers• Team Leads (NASA & LM IPT/Module Leads)• Reps from other IPTs/Modules, impacts SPTs,• Reps from MOD, Crew Office, CxP, other key stakeholders (invited but not mandatory)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• RID Initiators/”Champions”• PIT and MRIRoles and Responsibilities• Review and evaluate technical content of RID• Make recommended disposition on RIDs that are with-in scope and funding• Concur with or change the recommended disposition• Select “Recommend Approve”, “Approve w/Mod”, or “Recommend Withdraw”• Elevate RIDs on key issues to the Pre-Board• Communicate with initiator if discussion is neededSchedule• Planned for August 12-19• May begin meeting early if the team leads choose to do so as RIDs become available: • As RIDs are submitted or as team is available • Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to determine the total meeting time required DRAFT
  • 62. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Review Teams Review TeamsMembers Location• Team Leads (NASA & LM IPT/Module Leads)• Reps from other IPTs/Modules, impacts SPTs, the PDR • Space Park, look for Room Assignments on Portal• Reps from MOD, Crew Office, CxP, other key stakeholders (invited but not mandatory) at Glenn • SM Team and Requirements Team held Research Center, OH• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• RID Initiators/”Champions” AL • LAS at MSFC, Huntsville ,• PIT and MRI will require travel – advisable for Team • No meetings leads to be co-locatedRoles and Responsibilities Procedures• Review and evaluate technical content of RID• Make recommended dispositionthe meeting are with-in • Review Team Leads will chair on RIDs that scope and funding meetings however they see fit, • Chairs can run the whatever works to get through their RIDs – however,• Concur with or change the recommended disposition some level of consistency will be good to not confuse• Select “Recommend Approve”, “Approve w/Mod”, or initiators “Recommend Withdraw”• Elevate Members willissues totechnical expertise on RID • Team RIDs on key provide the Pre-Board issues• Communicate with initiator if discussion is needed • RID Initiators may come to the meeting in person or dialScheduletelecon in via• Planned Team Lead will • Reviewfor August 12-19make a recommend disposition• May beginmerge parent and child RIDs in the ConCERT • MRI will meeting early if the team leads choose to do RID Tool so as RIDs become available: • • As will input submitted or asdisposition in the MRI RIDs are recommended team is available ConCERT RID Tool • Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to determine the total meeting time required DRAFT
  • 63. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Review Teams Review Teams Review TeamsMembers Location• Team Leads (NASA & LM IPT/Module Leads) RID Tool Procedures• Reps from otherthe for Room Assignments on thePIT • Space Park, look • MRI will run IPTs/Modules, the meeting, with tool during impacts SPTs, PDR Portal• Reps from MOD, Crew Office, CxP, other key • SM Team andneeded support as Requirements Team held at stakeholders (invited edit not recommendedGlenn • Review Center, OH the mandatory) Research Team will but disposition• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team used) givenMSFC, Huntsville ,Team (the same field is by the Screening AL • LAS at• RIDReview Team will add their comments and rationale to • Initiators/”Champions” • No meetings will require travel – advisable for Team• PIT the same field as the Screening Team and MRI leads to be co-located • Provide a date and name stamp (“Review Team”) forRoles and Responsibilities all comments Procedures• Review and evaluate technical content of RIDor “Approve w/ • If disposition is “Recommend Withdraw”• Make recommended dispositionthe meeting are with-in • Review Team Leads will chair on RIDs that Mods” scope and funding meetings howeverfeature in fit, • Chairs can run the they see • Send RID back to through usingRIDs – however, Initiator their Tool whatever works to get• Concur with or change the recommended disposition • If disposition is “Approve” or elevating to Pre-Board• SelectAssign disposition and inputgood to not confuse some “Recommend Approve”, “Approve w/Mod”, or • level of consistency will be comments initiators “Recommend Withdraw” • Use Tool to send RID to next level (Pre-Board)RID• Elevate Members the issues totechnical expertise on • Team RIDs on key provide the Pre-Board will issues• This with initiator if discussionis elevated• Communicate is step where the RID is needed • RID Initiators may come to the meeting in person or dialScheduletelecon in via• Planned Team Lead will • Reviewfor August 12-19make a recommend disposition• May beginmerge parent and child RIDs in the ConCERT • MRI will meeting early if the team leads choose to do RID Tool so as RIDs become available: • • As will input submitted or asdisposition in the MRI RIDs are recommended team is available ConCERT RID Tool • Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to determine the total meeting time required DRAFT
  • 64. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Project Orion Pre-Board• NASA Orion VI&D chaired board• Provides initial evaluation of the Project’s success in meeting the PDR entrance and success criteriaRoles & Responsibilities• Resolve and disposition elevated or disputed RIDs• Identify issues that need to go forward to the Board (due to significant cost, schedule, or technical impact/risk) DRAFT
  • 65. Orion RID Process Flow Project Orion Project Orion Board• NASA Orion Project Manager chaired• Evaluates the Project’s success in meeting the PDR success criteria• Approving the basis of and viable path for proceeding to the Critical Design ReviewRoles & Responsibilities• Hears all reclama elevated to the board level and makes the final decision regarding RID disposition• Evaluates any issue that has been brought forward to the Board (due to significant cost, schedule, or technical impact/risk)• Is the final decision authority for dispositioning of on all RIDs• Ensures the closure of RIDs resulting from PDR DRAFT
  • 66. Orion PDR RID Metrics Project Orion Orion vs. External Sponsored RIDsExternal, 1582 Orion, 2043 RIDs Withdrawn ApprovedOrion 2043 860 1183External 1582 787 795
  • 67. Orion PDR RID Metrics Project Orion Project OrionDiscipline # of RIDsAv & SwAv: Comm & Track 605 22 Orion PDR Sponsored RIDs by DisciplineAv: C&DH 30ICDs 107 Wiring, 40CM 452 Other, 272LAS 267 EGSE, 43Con Ops 204Vehicle 142 LRS, 57 Av & Sw , 605ICCS 120Mech 115 Av: Comm & Track, 22SM 126 Crew Systems, 88ECLSS 124 Av: C&DH, 30EPS 103Propulsion 76 T&V, 204 ICDs, 107Pyrotechnics 88GN&C 65 Hazard Analysis, 45Structures 72 GN&C, 65 CM, 452Hazard Analysis 45T&V 204 Pyrotechnics, 88Crew Systems 88MGSE 49 Propulsion, 76Drawings & Models 37 EPS, 103LRS 57 LAS, 267EGSE 43 ECLSS, 124Manufacturing & Assembly 23 Con Ops, 204PTC 26 SM, 126Wiring 40 Vehicle, 142TPS 23 Mech, 115 ICCS, 120Other 272 67