Orbiting Carbon Observatory - 2: Recovering from Mission Loss Eric Ianson Program Executive Science Mission Directorate
Introduction – Launch of the  Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) February 24, 2009 1:59 AM PST Approximately 17 minutes later
Now What?  Do we rebuild and fly another OCO? <ul><li>Is there a scientific urgency? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the scienc...
Immediate Actions (1-6 months following mission loss) <ul><li>Revalidated science need by NASA-convened community research...
Seeking Support <ul><li>Throughout the summer of 2009 SMD’s Earth Science Division worked with the NASA Office of the Admi...
Funding Put in Place for OCO-2 <ul><li>In the FY10 budget NASA was directed to fund OCO-2 not less than $50M </li></ul><ul...
OCO-2 Mission Development Plans and Objectives <ul><li>Even the most aggressive schedules for NASA science missions typica...
OCO-2 Schedule Activities conducted during this 8-month Tailored Formulation Period are described in the following slides ...
Tailored Formulation Period Approach <ul><li>OCO-2 Tailored Formulation Period (TFP) activities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Add...
OCO-2 will complete all NPR 7120.5 Formulation Gate Products Prior to KDP-C NPR 7120.5 OCO2 Products Pre-A Phase A § Phase...
OCO-2 will complete all NPR 7120.5 Formulation Project Control Plans Prior to KDP-C NPR 7120.5 OCO-2 Project Plan – Contro...
Tailored Formulation Events (1 of 2) <ul><li>FY10 Formulation Kickoff Meeting (Feb 24) – SMD DPMC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pr...
Tailored Formulation Events (2 of 2) <ul><li>Implementation Planning Meeting (April 19) – ESD/Program Office </li></ul><ul...
Other Issues Addressed During Tailored Formulation Period <ul><li>Sole-source subcontracts required to maintain 28 month i...
NASA Commits to OCO-2 Mission <ul><li>On Sept 24, 2010 (19 months after the loss of OCO), NASA approved OCO-2 to enter Pha...
Lessons from the OCO-2 Effort <ul><li>Before proposing a recommended solution, define (by programmatic direction) a constr...
Questions?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Ianson

13,872

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
13,872
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ianson

  1. 1. Orbiting Carbon Observatory - 2: Recovering from Mission Loss Eric Ianson Program Executive Science Mission Directorate
  2. 2. Introduction – Launch of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) February 24, 2009 1:59 AM PST Approximately 17 minutes later
  3. 3. Now What? Do we rebuild and fly another OCO? <ul><li>Is there a scientific urgency? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the science community view the OCO measurement as a top priority? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can OCO algorithms be used to translate other data sources (NASA’s AIRS/JAXA’s GOSAT)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can we wait for the next generation of CO 2 measurements (ASCENDS)? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is there political support for another OCO mission? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Obama administration emphasis on Climate Change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Congressional interests are unpredictable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Where would the funding for another mission come from? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Taking funding from other missions with important Earth science priorities hurts the NASA Earth Science program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can new funding be provided? If so, when? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can we combine an OCO-like instrument with other instruments/missions? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scientific synergies/compromises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology challenges </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If we fly another OCO-like mission do we include “modest upgrades” in capability? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adding a Carbon Monoxide channel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improving the instrument design </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What launch vehicle can we use? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Taurus XL- Can the failure be understood and prevented in the future? Will it be available? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other vehicles – Cost, availability, interface changes and loads/dynamics impacts? </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Immediate Actions (1-6 months following mission loss) <ul><li>Revalidated science need by NASA-convened community research team (April 09) and unsolicited National Research Council (NRC) Letter Report (July 09) </li></ul><ul><li>Expanded already-planned science collaboration with JAXA for GOSAT/Ibuki satellite measurement validation, advancement of carbon science, accelerated maturity of OCO algorithms/processing </li></ul><ul><li>Examined replacement options </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Direct rebuild of OCO (identical mission concept) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rebuild of an OCO mission with science upgrades, such as adding a CO channel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-manifesting OCO-like instrument with another planned mission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OCO-like instrument on the International Space Station </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-manifesting OCO rebuild observatory on a shared launch vehicle </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Initiated proactive schedule risk reductions (utilizing residual OCO funding) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Procured key obsolete instrument components </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Procured long-lead parts for instrument </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed work-around for obsolete spacecraft flight computer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessed OCO spare parts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Updated drawings </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Seeking Support <ul><li>Throughout the summer of 2009 SMD’s Earth Science Division worked with the NASA Office of the Administrator on a proposed approach for an OCO replacement based on the actions taken following the loss of the mission </li></ul><ul><li>In Sept 2009 NASA presented a plan to Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)/Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a “Carbon Copy” direct rebuild on dedicated launch vehicle, using a nearly identical approach as OCO: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project Management to be assigned to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OCO instrument built by the JPL with minimum required design changes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spacecraft rebuild by Orbital Science Corporation with minimum required design changes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Taurus-XL launch vehicle (Agency working on return to flight actions for Glory Mission) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fly in the A-Train Constellation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>28-month development from Authority to Proceed (ATP) - Key Decision Point – C (KDP-C) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated Life-Cycle Cost and cost profile developed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No upgrades in capability (complicates the design and adds risk to the cost/schedule estimates) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Funding Put in Place for OCO-2 <ul><li>In the FY10 budget NASA was directed to fund OCO-2 not less than $50M </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$25M in new funds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$25M out of existing program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>~$7M has been funded from remaining OCO Base Funds </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>~$18M is to be funded with ARRA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>The FY11 President’s Budget identified a funding profile for OCO-2 </li></ul><ul><li>For planning purposes, SMD’s Earth Science Division allocated this funding between the project, launch vehicle and program-level reserves </li></ul>
  7. 7. OCO-2 Mission Development Plans and Objectives <ul><li>Even the most aggressive schedules for NASA science missions typically take 6-12 months of pre-formulation planning and a Formulation period (Phases A & B) of 18-24 months. OCO-2 had much more challenging objectives: </li></ul><ul><li>To complete the successful development and launch of the OCO-2 satellite as expeditiously as possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Working to maintain the ATP+28 month development cycle NASA presented to OSTP/OMB </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Supported by the FY11 President’s Budget </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverages the work performed during OCO development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes a full set of instrument spare components </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To use the period from Feb 2010 – Sep 2010 to restart and formulate the mission implementation approach to be ready for ATP on Oct 1, 2010. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressing formulation activities and requirements in FY10 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To use Oct 1, 2010 as the mission kick-off date, coincident with KDP-C </li></ul><ul><li>To comply with the NASA implementation requirements wherever possible and reasonable, only applying minimal waivers, as required, to ensure mission success (cost, schedule, and performance) </li></ul>
  8. 8. OCO-2 Schedule Activities conducted during this 8-month Tailored Formulation Period are described in the following slides 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 FY2016 FY2017 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Proposed OCO-2 Schedule Conventional Project Life-Cycle Pre-A (6 mo) Phase A (9 mo) Phase B (12 mo) Phase C (24 mo) Phase D (12 mo) Phase E (24 mo) 21 mo MCR MDR (PNAR) PDR (NAR) CDR SIR ORR LRD PLAR Pre-A (6 mo) TFP (8 mo) Phase C (16.5 mo) Phase D (11.5 mo) Phase E (24 mo) CDR (NAR) SIR ORR LRD PLAR 36 mo SRR 8 mo 28 mo Tailored Formulation Period (8 mo) CDR (NAR) Peer Reviews (w/SRB Participation)
  9. 9. Tailored Formulation Period Approach <ul><li>OCO-2 Tailored Formulation Period (TFP) activities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Address all NASA Formulation gate products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conduct a series of Peer Reviews (14) with SRB involvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conduct a combined Critical Design Review (CDR)/Non-Advocate Review (NAR) prior to KDP-C </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maximize the use of original OCO designs and documentation wherever possible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employ sole source contracting with key vendors used on the original OCO project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authorize long lead and obsolete part procurements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Because of the advanced maturity level of the OCO-2 project, the following standard NASA practices were NOT to be conducted as part of the TFP: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formal KDP A and B </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The following Formulation technical reviews: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mission Concept Review (MCR) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mission Definition Review (MDR) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>System Requirements Review (SRR)/Preliminary Non-Advocate Review (PNAR) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preliminary Design Review (PDR) </li></ul></ul></ul>At the conclusion of the TFP, OCO-2 would be ready to enter a standard Phase C/D
  10. 10. OCO-2 will complete all NPR 7120.5 Formulation Gate Products Prior to KDP-C NPR 7120.5 OCO2 Products Pre-A Phase A § Phase B KDP A KDP B KDP C HQ and Program Products 1. FAD Approved 2. Program Requirements on the Project Draft Baseline Update 3. ASM minutes Baseline 4. NEPA Compliance Documentation EA 5. Inter-Agency & International Agrmts Baseline 6. Mishap Control Plan Project Technical Products 1. Mission Concept Report Preliminary Baseline 2. System Level Requirements Preliminary Baseline 3. Preliminary Design Report Baseline 4. Missions Operations Concept Preliminary Baseline 5. Tech Readiness Assessment Rept Baseline 6. Missile Sys Pre-Launch Safety Pkg Preliminary 7. Detailed Design Report 8. As-built H/W & S/W Documentation 9. Verification and Validation Report 10. Operations Handbook 11. Orbital Debris Assessment Initial Preliminary 12. End of Mission Plan Initial Preliminary 13. Mission Report Proj. Planning, Cost, & Schedule Prod. 1. Work Agreements for Next Phase Baseline** Baseline 2. Management Baseline Draft Preliminary Baseline 3. Project Plan Preliminary Baseline 4. CADRe Preliminary Baseline 5. Planetary Protection Plan PPC Baseline 6. Nuclear Safety Launch Approval Plan Baseline 7. Bus. Case Analysis for Infrastructure Preliminary Baseline 8. Range Safety Risk Management Plan Preliminary 9. Sys Decommissioning/‌Disposal Plan KDP Readiness Products 1. SRB Report Final Final Final 2. Project Manager Recommendation Final Final Final 3. CMC Recommendation Final Final Final 4. Program Manager Recommendation Final Final Final 5. MD-PMC Recommendation Final Final Final 6. Governing PMC Recommendation Final Final Final Products Pre-A TFP Kickoff KDP C HQ and Program Products 1. FAD Approved 2. Program Requirements on the Project Draft Baseline 3. ASM minutes Baseline 4. NEPA Compliance Documentation EA 5. Inter-Agency & International Agrmts Baseline 6. Mishap Control Plan Project Technical Products 1. Mission Concept Report Baseline 2. System Level Requirements Baseline 3. Preliminary Design Report Baseline 4. Missions Operations Concept Baseline 5. Tech Readiness Assessment Rept Baseline 6. Missile Sys Pre-Launch Safety Pkg Preliminary 7. Detailed Design Report 8. As-built H/W & S/W Documentation 9. Verification and Validation Report 10. Operations Handbook 11. Orbital Debris Assessment Preliminary 12. End of Mission Plan Preliminary 13. Mission Report Proj. Planning, Cost, & Schedule Prod. 1. Work Agreements for Next Phase Baseline 2. Management Baseline Baseline 3. Project Plan Baseline 4. CADRe Baseline 5. Planetary Protection Plan N/A 6. Nuclear Safety Launch Approval Plan N/A 7. Bus. Case Analysis for Infrastructure Baseline 8. Range Safety Risk Management Plan Preliminary 9. Sys Decommissioning/‌Disposal Plan KDP Readiness Products 1. SRB Report Final 2. Project Manager Recommendation Final 3. CMC Recommendation Final 4. Program Manager Recommendation Final 5. MD-PMC Recommendation Final Final 6. Governing PMC Recommendation Final Final
  11. 11. OCO-2 will complete all NPR 7120.5 Formulation Project Control Plans Prior to KDP-C NPR 7120.5 OCO-2 Project Plan – Control Plans Pre-Phase A Phase A Phase B KDP A KDP B KDP C 1. Technical, Schedule, and Cost Control Plan   Preliminary Baseline 2. Safety and Mission Assurance Plan   Preliminary Baseline 3. Risk Management Plan   Preliminary Baseline 4. Acquisition Plan   Preliminary Baseline 5. Technology Development Plan   Baseline   6. Systems Engineering Management Plan   Baseline   7. Software Management Plan   Preliminary Baseline 8. Review Plan   Preliminary Baseline 9. Missions Operations Plan     Preliminary 10. Environmental Management Plan   Baseline   11. Logistics Plan   Preliminary   12. Science Data Management Plan     Preliminary 13. Information and Configuration Management Plan   Preliminary Baseline 14. Security Plan   Preliminary Baseline 15. Export Control Plan   Preliminary Baseline Project Plan – Control Plans Pre-Phase A TFP Kickoff KDP C 1. Technical, Schedule, and Cost Control Plan   Baseline 2. Safety and Mission Assurance Plan   Baseline 3. Risk Management Plan   Baseline 4. Acquisition Plan   Baseline 5. Technology Development Plan     Baseline 6. Systems Engineering Management Plan     Baseline 7. Software Management Plan   Baseline 8. Review Plan   Baseline 9. Missions Operations Plan   Preliminary 10. Environmental Management Plan     Baseline 11. Logistics Plan   Preliminary  12. Science Data Management Plan   Preliminary 13. Information and Configuration Management Plan   Baseline 14. Security Plan   Baseline 15. Export Control Plan   Baseline
  12. 12. Tailored Formulation Events (1 of 2) <ul><li>FY10 Formulation Kickoff Meeting (Feb 24) – SMD DPMC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provided NASA direction for Formulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Release of a Formulation Authorization Document (FAD) to the Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outline a schedule of NASA reviews leading to KDP-C in Oct 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Coordination of Tailored Formulation Period with key Agency Stakeholders to get their support and inputs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Program Analysis & Evaluation Office (PA&E) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Associate Administrator </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Development of Waiver against 7120.5 Formulation Activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Submitted by ESSP Program Office </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approved by NASA OCE on March 8, 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Acquisition Strategy Meeting (March 8) – SMD/Agency Level </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Approved Tailored Formulation approach (inc. waiving KDP-A&B; tech reviews etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Program Level Requirements Review (March 17) – ESD/ESSP Program Office </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Agreed on the PLRA (Level 1 Requirements) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Highlighted any differences from OCO; Resolved issues </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Tailored Formulation Events (2 of 2) <ul><li>Implementation Planning Meeting (April 19) – ESD/Program Office </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project provided a detailed plan for meeting the TFP requirements and a draft Project Plan for mission implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Project Peer Reviews (February - July) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project level reviews to analyze the OCO-2 requirements and design with emphasis on changes from original OCO </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SRB members with relevant experience participated in peer reviews </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Combined CDR/NAR (August 25-26) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>System maturity brought to CDR level during the TFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides project baseline & is the pre-cursor review for KDP-C in Oct 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SRB-Level Review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope well defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Joint Confidence Level (JCL) assessment conducted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Successful CDR/NAR – No issues or concerns; 1 action item; 2 advisories accepted by project </li></ul></ul>At the conclusion of the TFP, OCO-2 was deemed ready to conduct a KDP-C and enter a standard Phase C/D
  14. 14. Other Issues Addressed During Tailored Formulation Period <ul><li>Sole-source subcontracts required to maintain 28 month implementation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>JPL/CALTECH contract sole source approvals in place </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Spacecraft: Orbital Sciences Corporation (OCO Spacecraft Provider) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instrument: In-House JPL Build with subcontracts to OCO Vendors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Long-lead/obsolete part procurements approach authorized in the FAD </li></ul><ul><li>OCO Orbital Debris waivers resubmitted and approved for OCO-2 – May 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Accelerated launch vehicle competitive procurement process conducted by NASA Launch Services Program to ensure launch vehicle selection before expiration of NLS contract – June 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed with NOAA/GOES-R for two cryocooler assemblies - July 2010 </li></ul>
  15. 15. NASA Commits to OCO-2 Mission <ul><li>On Sept 24, 2010 (19 months after the loss of OCO), NASA approved OCO-2 to enter Phase C (via the SMD Directorate Program Management Council) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Life Cycle Cost Commitment = $350M ($30M less than the FY11 President’s Budget) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schedule Commitment = February 2013 LRD (consistent with the initial proposed approach to OSTP/OMB) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Lessons from the OCO-2 Effort <ul><li>Before proposing a recommended solution, define (by programmatic direction) a constrained (but sufficiently broad) set of allowable alternatives to be fully explored </li></ul><ul><li>Build a compelling case for the selected course of action </li></ul><ul><li>Engage the appropriate stakeholders inside (HQ and Centers) and outside (OSTP, OMB, etc) the Agency throughout the process </li></ul><ul><li>Standard Agency processes and procedures can be tailored, but it requires thorough planning and coordination </li></ul><ul><li>While specific NASA requirements can be waived, efforts must be made to address the intent of these requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Any non-standard approach to a NASA project requires a tightly coordinated effort between the Project, Program, Center(s), and Mission Directorate </li></ul><ul><li>Creative solutions require explicit documentation (e.g. FAD, ToR, PLRA, Task Plans, Waivers, etc) </li></ul><ul><li>To successfully implement a rapid-turn around replacement mission, the design capabilities must be identical to the previous mission (non-recurring engineering must be constrained to be ONLY that necessary for parts obsolescence) </li></ul><ul><li>Project needs to be vigilant during formulation and implementation to ensure that the changes to the original design are indeed minimized to only those necessary (beware of requirements creep)   </li></ul>
  17. 17. Questions?
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×