The document discusses the ST-5 mission to launch 3 micro-satellites, which faced significant uncertainty from new technologies, an aggressive schedule, and lack of a confirmed launch vehicle. To manage the uncertainty, the team treated technical risks carefully, communicated openly, and designed the spacecraft flexibly. Though the secondary launch fell through, the robust design allowed an eventual primary launch to be a great success, growing the engineers and validating technologies despite the challenges.

1. Managing Under
Challenging Circumstances
Doug McLennan
February 2008

2. Why So Much Uncertainty
• We seem to see uncertainty everywhere
we turn
– Is it poor planning?
– Is it poor execution?
– Is it inevitable?
• Can it be avoided?
• Why not address all this uncertainty before
we start our missions?

3. Where Does It Come From
• Challenging Missions
– We do these because of the challenges
– A certain amount of uncertainty is inherent in
these missions
• Aggressive Schedules
– Key to managing cost
– We can’t afford the luxury of knowing
everything before we start
• New Technologies and Approaches
– Uncertainty is always present

4. What Should We Do
• Can we reduce the amount of uncertainty
– Should we plan better?
– Should this be recognized as we select what
we do?
• How can we manage uncertainty
– Can we ignore it?
– Who is responsible for managing it?
– Is it just another risk?
– Can we reduce it?

5. Managing Uncertainty
with
The ST-5 Mission

6. ST-5 Background
• New Millennium Mission
– New technology validation
– High risk – by design
• Development of three micro-sats
• Started in late 1999
• Launch set for 2003
• Baselined as a secondary payload

7. What Uncertainty Was There
• New technologies
– Managed as technical risks
– Jointly “owned” by Systems and Project
Management
– Challenges recognized by all
• Aggressive cost and schedule baseline
– Was the project going to survive confirmation
• Challenges of being a secondary payload
– Could the mission survive this uncertainty

8. Managing ST-5
• Technical, schedule and cost
– We face these risks regularly
– Managed as risks
– It was significant and challenging
• Lack of a confirmed launch
– This challenge was new to all of us
– The difficulty of acquiring a ride was
underestimated by all
• Could the mission survive this level of
uncertainty?

9. Launch Vehicle Uncertainty
• Technical Approach
– Baseline approach followed through SDR
– Defined “generic” interface to support PDR
– Flexibility shown at CDR
– Delta-CDR supported Pegasus configuration
• Impact on the team
– Would the mission survive?
– Communication was critical
– Credible technical approach was key

10. What Happened
• Secondary launch never materialized
• Robust design “saved” the mission
• Successfully launched in March 2006
• Extremely successful Project
– Met all requirements
– Grew a new generation of engineers and
mangers
– Stepping stone for future multi-spacecraft
missions

11. ST-5 Spacecraft Overview
X-Band Antenna
(in radome; top Li-Ion Battery
and bottom (hidden under top
decks) deck)
Variable Emitance
Coating (radiator X-Band
and electronics) Transponder
and HPA
Nutation
Damper Miniature
Spinning
Sun Sensor
Triple Junction
Solar Cells
Magnetometer
Deployment Propulsion
Boom Subsystem
(including
tank and
micro-
thruster)
C&DH and PSE Integral Card
Thruster Control
cards (inside Cage
Miniature Electronics,
card cage) Structure
Magnetometer Pressure Transducer
(sensor and electronics) Electronics

12. Revised Launch Vehicle
Accommodation
• Old EELV secondary payload accommodation with three discrete PAF S/C
mounting locations
• Replaced by single structure with co-planar “stacked” mounting locations on
Pegasus® common column support
ST-5 Satellite
OLD
X
EELV
Z Y
ST-5 Satellites
NEW
Pegasus

13. Pegasus Fairing Accommodation
Pegasus Static
Envelope
Upper S/C Door
Ogive Mate
Line
Middle S/C
Door
Bottom S/C
Door
X
Z
Y

14. All 3 ST-5 Spacecraft in Clean Tent

15. Spacecraft on Deployment Structure