Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This is actually a SIMPLIFIED version of a diagram created by the Constellation CAD Working Group in2009 which shows sources and destinations, media, and some of the processes for getting the data used to produce the Outer Mold Line (OML) for Ares 1. It is important to note that the CAD models are all 3D, and are needed PRE-RELEASE.The OML uses design definition inputs, but it is an analysis object created from designs with a range of maturity; shortly after Orion’s PDR, ATK began CDR for first stage, while the Mobile Launch Platform had been constructedWe recognize that most projects will not experience this much diversity, but the creation of complex assemblies in different versions formats needed for analysis, simulation, and other downstream uses will require more attention than you might be used to.
  • Gill.paul

    1. 1. NASA PM Challenge 2011Product Data & LifecycleManagement (PDLM) --Project Management Implications Paul Gill NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL Lisa Murphy Atura Integration, Huntsville, AL
    2. 2. Goals• NASA space flight programs and projects are now expected to plan for Product Data and Lifecycle Management (PDLM).• PMs will understand more about • what PDLM is, • why they are being asked to address it, • how to exploit it, and • where to go for information and support.• Give two ConOps: IFA and DDT&E • Use actual experience from CxP to illustrate challenges[Content below to be addressed after rest of presentation is done.]• While no PM wants to pay more than needed for manufacturing, the likelihood that proactive management of product definition data can avoid the cost, time, and risk of recreating data for analysis, modeling, simulation, training, dependent designs (e.g., GSE), and facilities modifications may provide a more cogent motivation to exploit PDLM.• Finally, we will review the current state of PDLM services at NASA and identify how PMs, lead engineers, designers, systems engineers, and procurement personnel can go about finding the support they need.
    3. 3. Concept of Operation 1:Generic In-Flight Anomaly (IFA)• 10 years ago we developed a Flag Ship Class spacecraft.• Nearing the end of a very long cruise mode, the vehicle must be configured for planetaryarrival While coming out of cruise, a critical component experiences an operational anomaly.• Mission team has 12 hours to fix the problem prior to entering into orbit or the mission will be lost. Built-in monitoring system on the central electronics unit indicates a device on the processor card is not functioning properly.The Question at hand: What data will be needed, and how dowe plan for it a decade or more beforehand?
    4. 4. IFA Data Needs <4 hrs: Partial List• As-designed/as-purchased/as-tested/as-built/as-flown product structure and definition• Circuit card schematic• Specifications (e.g., materials, acceptance testing)• Where (else) used• Location and status of spares• Firmware, software, parameters• Circuit card testing and failure history• Impact analysis of failure (e.g., FMEA)• Failure history of components in similar settings• History of component/card/sub-system behavior over course of mission• Trades/Design Rationale
    5. 5. IFA Support Requires Multiple StreamsOnly one stream is Product Data Part/assy object Data from ADP for on current this specific mission (“as object on this flown” flight Part/Assembly Part/Assembly Object Object (As-flown) Assembly & DDT&E data Verification – Mission for this this instance Vehicle design Instance ADP Object | Description System or Communication Function & Control Design and analysis data Other for design instances history Fabrication & (e.g., prior Procurement Deliveries or flights) Data about other Data from handling or Delivered data instances of operations conducted from site that this part and after DD250, e.g., VAB manufactured experience on PRACA items this specific other missions part
    6. 6. IFA ConOpConsiderations• Data created by different groups at different physical locations, at different times, in different formats, and for other purposes  And, it’s ten years later• Need a small, particular subset of all data about this part – and need it in context  From different contractors, different centers  From different points in a long development cycle  From communities with different vocabularies  From tools now superseded by later versions How many IFA scenarios does your Project have?
    7. 7. Q: What is 13 GB?A: The amount of memory required to open the top-level 3D CAD model of the Crew Module (only) at Orion’s Preliminary Design Review (PDR)Here’s a hint
    8. 8. ConOp 2: Development Data Deluge• Before we have an IFA, have to get through DDT&E• We are seeing some very large amounts of data created during Design & Testing alone  Scale of product, types of analysis & testing, procurement strategy all affect this – but no one is immune• Illustrative Cases from CxP  Core Input for Analysis: OML  Analysis, Testing & Simulation Deluge  Sample Documents & CAD Models: Ares & Orion at PDRDocuments: Ares 1 PDR reviewed ~500 documents and two drawings With ~38,000 documents in Ares Windchill Project FoldersCAD: 16 months later at Orion PDR, LMSSC delivered ~11,000 discrete 3D models forService Module, Crew Module, Launch Abort System LMSSC had ~250,000 versions, iterations, or variants in their Windchill vault
    9. 9. ConOp 2: DDT&EReviews  Data does nothing but grow over phasesIntegrated Stack OML  Challenging to integrate CAD models from different suppliers  Designs at different maturities  Not a design object; uses pre-release models  Requires special CAD settings and practicesAnalysis, Testing & Simulation  Volumes of data created for and used for analysis, verification, and testing
    10. 10. DDT&E: Ares/Orion OML MSFC Ares Vehicle Integration responsible for integrated stack OML 3D CAD envelope model • in Low-, Medium-, and High-Fidelity versions for each Design Analysis Cycle (DAC) Proliferation of demand for OML or data from OMLfor other design & analysis uses, including: J2 LH2 blade ejection cone Sensor locations Acoustic wind tunnel 4% model GNC node points Clearance analysis simulation Inboard profile IU/SA compartment for Human Factors IS-gimbal Protuberance dimensions Thrust oscillation models Fairing panel separation dynamic RoCs nozzle placement Re-entry configuration for US Antenna locationsSource: list of requested models or data from OML CAD models in DAC 2 for Ares 1.
    11. 11. Ares1 OML Data Exchange: Multiple Sources & Heavily Manual LM Upper Orion Boeing SSC Stage Ares Vehicle Integration (@MSFC) JSC DDMS ATK First ESMD ICE Stage Project Folders MSFC DDMS CxP LvlII DIO (@ JSC) Ground KSC DDMSDesign Ops KSCInteractions Manual Processing Source: CxP CAD WG May 2009
    12. 12. More Things to Do With CAD Models • 3D prototyping • Verify/analyze design for requirements or standards compliance • Conduct “-ilities” analyses • Create motion models (oscillation, rotation) • Create time-based visualizations (e.g., of assembly processes) • Use in models and simulations (e.g., VRML) • Plan verifications & validations; prepare before & after comparisons • View, manipulate, annotate, mark-up, e.g., for TIMs, Reviews • Mass properties: mass, CG, surface area, volume, Parts lists, used-on • Produce illustrations, “viewables” or other representations • Communications, Public Affairs, General Information • Training & Procedures, Documents, & Manuals• ICDskeleton models • Dynamics models• Flat pattern for sheet metal parts • Pipe Assembly Models• Bulk items, (e.g. Spray-on Insulation, • Harness subassembly models 12 Propellant • Layout models• Deployed models • Mass properties models
    13. 13. A Taste: Analysis & Testing• LMSSC test plans included telemetry ranging from 5 MB/sec (slow) to 20 MB/sec (fast) per channel• Engineering Task Description Sheets (from CAIT) show dependencies on 507 different data packages• Ares initiated a risk that they would not have enough storage for the testing data expected • [&&&CHECK NOTES RE SIZE OF STORAGE]• And there would be much, much, more: • Imagery • Simulation data sets (inputs/outputs), simulation testing set-up/configurations • Assembly, Installation, & Interference checking
    14. 14. Why Product Data & LifecycleManagement?Because we need to answer questions such as:1. How much should we risk (conversely, how much are we willing to pay) to ensure the relevant data exist and are accessible, discoverable, and understandable to support an IFA?2. Where should we invest our attention and resources to manage data during development? a. What data do we need from our contractors? b. In what formats do different users need the data?These concerns led to changes to NPD 7120.4 to include ProductData and Lifecycle Management, and development ofPDLM NPR.
    15. 15. What’s Happened:In 2008, Office of Chief Engineer takes lead on PDLM1. In 2009, updated to NPD 7120.4 to include PDLM2. Started working on PDLM NPR (approved 1/2011)3. Interoperability work (CAD, model exchanges)4. PDLM Steering Committee formed
    16. 16. Definition….• Product Data Management (PDM). A framework that enables organizations to manage and control engineering and technical information, specifically data surrounding the products design, definition, and related engineering, test, manufacturing, and logistics processes and is a key element of PLM…• Product Life-cycle Management (PLM). The process of managing the entire life cycle of a product from its conception, through design and manufacture, to service and disposal. PLM integrates people, data, processes, and business systems and provides a product information backbone for companies and their extended enterprise…
    17. 17. Scope & Coverage• Single Project & Tightly Coupled Space Flight Programs• Entire lifecycle for all types of product-related data • [See NPR}Recent experience has shown: • 3D CAD powerful, but requires special attention • Cannot wait until ADP to get models if you have insight-oversight • Collaborative design requires robust, frequent data exchange • Requiring same version, build of same tool not sufficient • Must look at who is doing what • Ask who needs it, why and when • Data exchange standards lag industry practice • So far, proprietary models only sure why to get all of data • Need to consider software along with hardware in product definition
    18. 18. PDLM NPR Summary (a)Projects & ProgramsResponsible for Process and Data ArchitectureWrite a Plan and update often • Authoritative data are identified, captured, cataloged • Agile, flexible, sound practices for data management • Critical product data receives timely attention to acquire what is needed, assure integrity, reflect maturity state(s) and authority • Know who needs what, when, format – across lifecycle• MDAA is responsible for seeing the PMs meet requirements
    19. 19. PDLM NPR Summary (b)Information Systems/Infrastructure (OCIO, Center Director)Assure that infrastructure adequate • Seek to effectively re-use solutions to common problems, improve performanceTools are known and providers committed to supportSecurity has received due attentionProject Manager – not center– is responsible for producing plan,building commitments • Work with Center or other providers to come to agreement on what services, for whom, and how Continues for now distributed PDM/PLM tool model • No one group assigned to provide agency-wide PDLM
    20. 20. Practical Matters: Plans, Tools & DataAcquisitionContent of PDLM Plan overlaps traditional Project planssuch as CM, DM, Records Management, SEMP,program/project plans • Multiple uses of same applications/similar data • Must initiate plan early and then update regularly • Identify needs, project future needs, coordinate with IT supplierData acquisition is critical to PDLM • Challenging to write DRDs that support CAD data exchange • Need to consider the data needed during design and IV&V • Also what is at physical delivery of product, engineering changesFew NASA personnel have hands-on experience with thenew data-centric, model-centric, technology direction
    21. 21. Generally, NASA Projects Face:Distributed Production & Use over an Extended Lifecycle• Need to exchange and use PRE-RELEASE product data• Mixture of internal and external sources – Centers, primes, partners, universities• High analysis demands, high volumes of ancillary data• Long project life cycles• Need for IFA reach-back• Ten independent Centers with local solutions• NASA cannot dictate how things are done at primes
    22. 22. Rockets as ProductsDifferent Specifications Neededto Get Data for Different Needs• Do derivative designs such as tooling, test stands• Sub-contract part of design work• Do design integrations• Conduct design review• Take over design change authority• Do modeling and simulations• Do physical integration & verification (e.g., at test site or VAB)• Re-bid production
    23. 23. More Reasons to Care • 2D drawings from NASA’s standard CAD tool (PTC Pro/Engineer Wildfire) are made from 3D models • To integrate the design of the 787 Dreamliner from their four design groups, Boeing • Had 16 Terabytes of data in their master repository • Packaged and delivered quarterly 150 applications for the distributed design teams to use • Some of the 24 different extensions to CAD models identified by MSFC CAD standard (only some of which are released):• Interface Control Document (ICD) skeleton • Deployed models models • Dynamics models• Envelope part models(e.g., OML) • Pipe Assembly Models• Flat pattern for sheet metal parts • Harness subassembly models• Bulk items, (e.g. Spray-on Insulation, • Layout models Propellant • Mass properties models• Generic of family table part instance
    24. 24. Questions?