• Like
Smith.marshall.bryant
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Smith.marshall.bryant

  • 13,839 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
13,839
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
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. Marshall Smith, Systems Engineering and Integration Chief Barry Bryant, Deputy SE&I Chiefwww.nasa.gov Used with permission
  • 2. Outline ♦ SE&I Organization Evolution • Increased scope • Increased personnel integration ♦ Integrated Design and Analysis (ID&A) • Distributed resources • Tiger teams ♦ Vehicle Assembly and Integration • Integration and testing ♦ Launch and Flight Integration • Range and Operations ♦ Systems Requirements and Verification • Requirements flow • Verification process ♦ SummaryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 7465.2
  • 3. Ares I-X Organization Ares I-X Flight Test Mission Management Office Safety & Mission (MMO) Chief Engineers Assurance ( S& MA ) Mission Manager Deputy Managers Systems Engineering & Integration Chief Project Integration Manager Business Manager Business Manager Deputy Project Integration (PI) Systems Engineering & Integration ( SE&I ) Upper Stage Roll Control Ground Ground CM/LAS First Stage Simulator Avionics System Systems Operations Simulator ( USS ) ( RoCS ) ( GS ) ( GO )National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3
  • 4. SE&I Evolution ♦ Established an SE&I Office (replaced AVIO) to include all aspects of mission ♦ Key organizational changes required to accommodate increased scope • Need to incorporate key members of the GO and GS teams • Increased scope of Range and Operations interactions • Expanded Requirements and Verification to include ground activities • Integrated Design and Analysis (ID&A) issues expanded to cover ground related issues • Established SE&I as the primary interface to GO and the Range during integrationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 7465.4
  • 5. SE&I Organization Safety & Mission Assurance Systems Engineering & Integration Office Engineering David Helfrich Marshall Smith Henry Wright S&MA Lead (TA) Chief Lead Engineer (TA) K.C. Johnson Barry Bryant Jim Price Deputy S&MA Lead Deputy Chief Deputy for Operations Stanley Ward Kurt Detweiler Mike Bangham Robert Decoursey Deputy for PP&C Lead Systems Engineer (LSE) Deputy LSE Software Lead Cynthia Weathers Lanny Upton Secretary Deputy LSE Project Integration Paul Luz Susie Johnston Vernet Mull Dan Healey Donner Grigsby Schedules CM/DM Vehicle Assembly Launch & Systems Requirements Avionics & Integrated Design & Integration Flight Integration & Verification Software Integration & Analysis Rami Intriago James Price Kevin Vipavetz Will Scott Carey Buttrill Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Rusty Jenkins Debbie Awtonomow Kevin Kempton Jose Ortiz Greg Hajos Deputy for Testing Deputy Deputy Deputy Deputy Chip Holloway Amy Houts-Gilfriche Deputy for Integration DeputyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 5
  • 6. Integration with the IPT’s ♦ Established a Lead Systems Engineer (LSE) as technical lead for the mission ♦ Established Systems Engineers (SE’s) in each IPT • SE’s met regularly with the LSE to work issues as a group − Allowed insight into another IPT’s issues − Sometimes simple changes on one side of an interface saves major changes ♦ SE&I avionics function was closely tied to Avionics IPT • Many times SE&I supplemented Avionics workforce • At the end of the Mission several SE&I personnel were assigned part time to the Avionics IPTNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 7465.6
  • 7. Integrated Design and Analysis (ID&A) Trajectory -Range Data Package - Ascent 6 DoF Monte Carlo -Stage Sep. Definitions - USS Reentry Study Aerodynamics - Roll-Out and On Pad Aero -Lift-Off Aero Vibro-acoustics - Ascent and Buffet Aero -Vibro-acoustics Databook -Stage Separation Aero -Buffet and Aero Acoustics -Aero Databook - Shock environments Structures Integrated Design & -Structures Data Book -Loads: Prelaunch, Liftoff, Ascent Analysis -Modal Testing Thermal - Ascent on Pad Guidance, Navigation & Control - Thermal Prediction Report - Drift Analysis & Databook -Stage Separation Analysis Integrated Mass Properties - GN&C Simulation Comparisons Mass Allocation Baseline Mass Prop. Control Plan -Control Algorithm & Parameter Doc.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7c
  • 8. ID&A Supporting Organizations ♦ Many organizations (Government and Contractor) supported the ID&A effort in developing requirements and evaluating analyses ♦ Major participants • Guidance, Navigation & Control − LaRC, MSFC, ULA, Aerospace Corp, Honeywell • Trajectory − LaRC, JSC, MSFC, JPL • Thermal − LaRC, MSFC, GRC, ATK, TBE • Vibro-Acoustics − Aerospace Corp, JSC • Structures & Loads − LaRC, Boeing, USA, GRC, MSFC, ATK, Aerospace • Aerodynamics − LaRC, Aerospace Corp. • Mass Properties − LaRC, ATK, GRC, Aerospace Corp. • IV&V across all IDA – Aerospace Corp, BoeingNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 8
  • 9. Numerous Tiger Teams ♦ Ignition Over Pressure • Mobile Launch Platform cover requirements ♦ Transonic forcing function • Transformation of wind tunnel results to I-X loads ♦ Vibro-Acoustics • Resolve late buffet data from Ares I wind tunnel test ♦ USS secondary structure • Independent review of analysis ♦ Loads & Environments • Prelaunch • Lift-Off (1st 6 seconds of flight) • Ascent to separation ♦ Ground wind loads for roll-out and on-pad stay • Multiple independent review teams, NESC IV&VNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 9
  • 10. ID&A Integration Lessons ♦ NESC is an extremely valuable resource • NESC has access to best Agency expertise • Wears Agency hat – impartial - particularly useful if technical disagreement occurs across center lines ♦ Recognize value of contractor technical leadership • Technical experience and depth in industry provides significant capability ♦ Use multiple organizations to simulate and model the design • Use a competitive environment to help scrub out errors • Dictating one simulation architecture is a mistake ♦ Promote technical conference-like interchange between disciplines • Numerous interchanges over the life of the project across IPTs and disciplines • Important details regarding lift-off loads modeling and the GNC fly-away maneuver unexpectedly discovered ♦ Use Multi-center Working Groups for analysis validation and verification • Experience specific to launch vehicle analyses exists across centers and is quickly infused into design process through working groups.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 10
  • 11. Assembly, Integration, & Test Plan ♦ Plan detailed IPT responsibilities for assemblies and interfaces • Necessary for a large multi-center, multi-location project ♦ Roles and Responsibility Matrix located in AIT Plan • 68 X 17 matrix of agreements • Approximately 1200 agreements ♦ Plan included the Drawing Tree ♦ Ares I-X FTV • 160 subsystems of flight hardware • 48 sub-assembliesNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 11
  • 12. Assembly, Integration, & Test ♦ Top level chronological plan of assembly, integration, and test • Utilized when parts from more than one IPT were assembled, integrated, or tested together • Plan covered activities beginning with DFI installation at GRC, KSC, LaRC and ATK • Plan ended with initiation of countdown ♦ Plan was a useful tool to: • Encourage discussions on assembly & drawings • Develop agreementsNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 12
  • 13. Ares I-X Major Tests ♦ Channelization in HB4 of Stacks 1-5 ♦ Weight and CG of each lift ♦ OML Measurement - alignment, parallelism, perpendicularity, profile straightness and cylindricity ♦ Stack 1, Stack 5, and FTV Modal tests ♦ Channelization in HB3 of SRB+Stack 1 ♦ FTINU Optical Verification in HB 3 ♦ LVRT – Launch Vehicle Readiness Test (Full Functional) before flight battery installation in HB3 ♦ IST – Integrated Systems Test (Full Functional) at Pad 39BNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 13
  • 14. Range Safety Interfaces ♦ Though Lead by LaRC, Each Task Required Extensive Interactions with the Interfaces Indicated ♦ Launch Constellation Range Safety Panel – JSC, KSC, MSFC, HQ, 45th Space Wing (Air Force) ♦ Telemetry and ground station – WFF, KSC, 45th ♦ Program Requirements Document – KSC, MSFC, 45th ♦ Range safety waivers – KSC, MSFC, 45th ♦ Flight Termination System spectrum frequency management – MSFC, JSC ♦ Range Steering Panel – KSC, JSC, MSFC, 45thNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 14
  • 15. Launch and Mission Operations ♦ Added KSC deputy for launch and flight integration ♦ Developed launch commit criteria – KSC, MSFC, JSC • Focused meetings with each IPT and working groups ♦ SE&I maintained close participation in KSC Operations forum • Multiple daily meetings to resolve integration issues ♦ Developed Program Requirements Document – KSC, MSFC, JSC ♦ Launch Operations network interface development – KSC ♦ Hangar AF recovery operations – MSFC, KSC, 45th • Explosive Site Plan • Post-Fire Operations Development ♦ Post-flight data management plan – KSC, MSFCNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 15
  • 16. Systems Requirements and Verification ♦ Requirements flow from the Mission Flight Test Plan ♦ The system level requirements were held in two documents • System Requirements Document (SRD) – Contains the Flight Test Vehicle (FTV) requirements • Ground Systems Requirements Document (GSRD) – Contains the Ground System (GS) requirements ♦ FTV System level requirements were decomposed to element requirement documents (ERD) • Avionics (AVI) • Crew Module/Launch Abort System Simulator (CMLAS) • First Stage (FS) • Roll Control System (RoCS) • Upper Stage Simulator (USS)National Aeronautics and Space Administration 16
  • 17. Requirements and Verification ♦ System level requirements (FTV and GS) • Each system requirements is owned by an System Requirement Owner (SRO) • Throughout the mission the SRO is accountable for definition, implementation and verification of the requirement • All system level verifications reviewed by Ares I-X (Chief Engineer, S&MA, Lead System Engineer) and very experienced independent review team ♦ FTV Element requirements • Element requirement owner (ERO) identified and accountable for each element level requirement • Element verification performed by each ERO • Element verifications reviewed by SE&I SRO, Ares I-X (Chief Engineer, SMA, Lead System Engineer) and by other IPTs − SRO: The element verification “Meets the need of the system verification” − Other elements: Interfaces and consistency ♦ SRO’s and ERO’s work together to develop and verify the components and systemNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 17
  • 18. Verification Bow Wave ♦ Ares I-X experienced a verification crush prior to FTRR due to: • Carefully selected subset of verifications completed prior to integration • Project accepted risk: future verification might require some de- integration • Ares I-X pace led to late completion of element and system verifications ♦ What we did to help • Engineering surge support team to help write and review verifications • Traveled to IPTs to work verification issues • Developed training package for verification writers and reviewers • Incorporated key IPT players to review and revise system level verifications ♦ Maintained process integrity • Review maintained extremely high standards • Knowledgeable independent team highly engaged • All comments dispositioned with full and equal considerationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 18
  • 19. Verification Burn-Down ♦ Ares I-X achieved 100% element and system requirement verification prior to launch 140 132 130 130 130 130 L-1 120 121 115 100 105 93 FTV VRDS Closed FTV VRDS Open 83 80 82 71 60 59 63 52 53 40 38 42 33 30 20 21 18 7 7 3 0 0 28-Aug 4-Sep 11-Sep 18-Sep 25-Sep 2-Oct 9-Oct 16-Oct 23-Oct 30-Oct Actual Remain to Submit CR Actual Remain to Close XCB L-1 Element DataNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 19
  • 20. Summary ♦ Successful utilization of diverse resources • Multiple center engineering teams (GN&C, thermal, aero, …) • Project oriented personnel (Requirements, document development, …) • Contractors • NESC ♦ Successfully integrated cultures from multiple centers • Human space flight vs science and robotic missions • Development vs research ♦ Successfully integrated contractors and civil servants • Contractors in key positions Bottom line When we needed to get something done – we got the right person to do itNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 20
  • 21. http://WWW.NASA.GOVhttp://www.nasa.gov/aresIX