The JPL Innovation Foundry was created to help NASA principal investigators conceive, develop, and propose new mission concepts. It provides stable and tailored support methods at each stage of formulation, on-demand access to technical and programmatic experts, optimized facilities, and lessons learned from past missions. The support environment has evolved to meet new challenges including more competition, complex missions, limited resources, and higher technical standards for proposals. The Foundry offers various infrastructure elements to help PIs strengthen concepts and develop competitive proposals.

1. JPL Innovation Foundry
Brent Sherwood1, Manager
Daniel J. McCleese1, Director
JPL Innovation Foundry
1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
NASA PM Challenge
February, 2012
© 2012 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

2. Executive Summary
JPL Innovation Foundry
• NASA supports the community of mission principal investigators by
helping them ideate, mature, and propose concepts for new
missions. As NASA’s FFRDC, JPL is a primary resource for
providing this service.
• The environmental context for the formulation lifecycle evolves
continuously. Contemporary trends include: more competitors; more-
complex mission ideas; scarcer formulation resources; and higher
standards for technical evaluation.
• Derived requirements for formulation support include:
stable, clear, reliable methods tailored for each stage of the
formulation lifecycle; on-demand access to standout technical and
programmatic subject-matter experts; optimized, outfitted facilities;
smart access to learning embodied in a vast oeuvre of prior
formulation work; hands-on method coaching.
• JPL has retooled its provision of integrated formulation lifecycle
support to PIs, teams, and program offices in response to this need.
This mission formulation enterprise is the JPL Innovation Foundry.
1

3. Clear trends are changing the world of
JPL Innovation Foundry
competed NASA missions
• More competitors
– Increasing population of PIs with requisite credentials
– Balance tilting toward PI-led missions vs. flagships
• More-complex mission ideas
– Earth-system science; exoplanet observation; planet interiors;
surface interaction, mobility, and return; outer solar system
• Scarcer formulation resources
– Topline-constrained new-start opportunities
– Phase A/B funding inadequate to bound risk
• Toughening standard of technical evaluation
– Ratcheting expectation for PDR-level validation
– Increasing risk aversion because of the recognition that
formulation casts the die
2

4. SMD PI-led Mission Community Faces
JPL Innovation Foundry
a Ratcheting Challenge
Simultaneous, competitive formulation…
…of a large number
…of deeply engineered concepts
…for ambitious science objectives
…achieved using only well-understood systems
…formulated on a strict diet
3

5. What Every PI Needs
JPL Innovation Foundry
• Darwinian evolution of a seed idea
– Maturation into a toughened concept baseline
– That can win, fly, and deliver
• Accurate forecasting despite incomplete data
– Of the eventual state of truth regarding cost and risk
– Of how NASA will model that state of truth when it
evaluates the concept
4

6. What Every PI Expects
JPL Innovation Foundry
• Above all, to win
• Respect for the integrity of the scientific vision
– Aligned pursuit of the best way to implement it
– Proprietary protection
• Dedicated campaign team
– Undistracted and undiluted
– Never feeling the presence of parallel campaigns
• The best help NASA can muster
– No stone unturned
– Deepest experts applied as needed
– Tangible, relevant lessons learned from NASA’s prior
concepts, proposals, and feedback
• Full immersion in decision-making ecology
– Selective control over concept and proposal development
– No surprises
5

7. Derived Requirements for a Supportive
Mission Formulation Process
JPL Innovation Foundry
• Method
– Stable, reliable, clear, understood, exercised
– Tailored for each stage of the formulation lifecycle
• SME access
– Standout subject-matter experts (technical and programmatic)
– On-demand when (but only when) needed
• Facilities
– Optimized for pace and interactions of formulation
• Smart access to prior art
– Thousands of engineered concepts, hundreds of vetted
proposals, tens of PI-led missions already “in the can”
• Hands-on coaching of the formulation craft
6

8. JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
MEETING THE CHALLENGE
7

9. Foundry Infrastructure Elements
JPL Innovation Foundry
• Concept Maturity Level scale
Method • Pre-Project Principles & Practices
• Campaign template tailoring
• Proposal Power Tools
SME access • Skill cadre via matrix organization
(technical, programmatic, and method)
• Concept innovation and maturation teams
(A-Team, Team X)
• Left Field (ideation)
Facilities
• Design Center (concurrent engineering)
• Proposal Center (secure war rooms)
• Information management
Access to prior art
• Knowledge management
Hands-on coaching • Technical facilitation
8

10. Every mission starts with a spark
JPL Innovation Foundry
Science
A question
An invention A mission
concept
Mission
Architecture
Technology Engineering
9

11. …then the concept is developed
JPL Innovation Foundry
Trades Alternatives and Selections Comments
Launch vehicle Atlas V Delta IV-Heavy Ares V Ares V considered acceptable only for sample
return concepts launched post 2020.
Cruise propulsion SEP + GAs Chemical + GAs Propulsive only Good performance from Chemical+Gravity
Assists (GAs). SEP+GAs warrants further
consideration, but new optimized trajectory
search is needed.
Capture into Saturn system Titan aerocapture Propulsive capture Uranus Aerogravity assist saves mass and also saves at Satellites
(aerogravity assist) least several months in pumpdown .
Pump-down mission design Enceladus/Titan Multiple moon GAs Multiple moon REP+GAs Other options found to be too high delta-V or
GAs only only propulsively- flight time.
or
Interior
leveraged GAs Interior
Magnetic Energetic Surface Surface
Structure Atmosphere Structure
RPS type MMRTG ARPS (advanced Field Particles specific power higher, efficiency much
ARPS Structure Composition
(Gravity Field) (Gravity Field)
Stirling) higher (less Pu needed). Guidelines allowed
ARPS as acceptable and available option for
flagship studies.
Orbiter implementation Enceladus Orbiter Low-Energy High-Energy
Enceladus Multiple- Enceladus Multiple- Lg. Circ. Vertical Release of
Flyby (Saturn Flyby (Saturn Sm. Conv. Structure Internal Heat
Orbiter) Orbiter)
Lander/Probe implementation Fly-Through Rough Landers Soft Landers Orbi-Landers Priority placed on having in-situ measurements
Probes and from surface.
Impactors Fly-By
Number of landers None One Three (regional Five (larger-scale
distribution) distribution and/or
redundancy)
Lander lifetime/duration Short-lived (~2 Long-lived (~1 year Polar Orbiter
weeks on primary on RPS)
battery or fuel cell)
A Enceladus orbiter with multiple
B Enceladus orbiter with multiple
Lander mobility type Stationary Locally mobile (~10 Regionally mobile Globally mobile Considered propulsive "hopper" type concepts
D Enceladus orbiter becoming a
(flybys) with multiple short-lived
Relative Goal Science Value
E Enceladus orbiter with single
(flybys) with a single long-lived
for soft landers. Equatorial
G High energy Saturn orbiter
km) (~100 km)
H Low energy Saturn orbiter
F Low energy Saturn orbiter
I Low energy Saturn orbiter
Orbiter
C Enceladus orbiter alone
short lived landers
long-lived landers
Acceptable and
long-lived lander
long-lived lander
(flybys) alone
(flybys) alone
Atm. Probe
evaluated in this
Legend: study
Mass Comparison Summary - Launch Mass and Sub-Elements
Cassini
landers
lander
Acceptable but not
evaluated in this
Science Goals, Enceladus Mission Science Assessment - 0-10, 10 best Lander
8000
study
7000 Unacceptable heat source, what IV-Heavy C3=16 km^2/s^2
1. What is the Delta drives the plume 10 6 7 4 5 5 2 1 3 6 1
6,000
One man’s concept is
Free-Flying
Instruments
6000 2. What is the plume production rate, and does it vary 8 8 9 8 9 9 7 3 8 7 3
3. What are the effects of the plume on the structure and
5,000
5000 composition of Enceladus? Atlas 551 C3=16 km^2/s^2 5 8 9 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2
Mass (kg)
4. What are the interaction effects of the plume on the
4000 Saturnian system 3 7 7 7 6 6 8 7 8 7 7
4,000
another’s doodle…
Lander(s)
3000 5. Does the composition and/or existence of the plume give
Orbiter
$FY06M
us clues to the origin and evolution of the solar system
Aerocapture System 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 3
2000 3,000 TMC
6. Does the plume source environment provide the Stage
Cruise/Prop
conditions necessary (or sufficient) to sustain biotic or pre-
1000
biotic chemistry 5 8 8 6 7 8 6 5 7 8 3
7. Are other similar bodies (Dione, Tethys, Rhea) also 2,000
0 active, and if not, why not? 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 5
A B C D E F G H I
Value by Architecture, summed 52 55 45 49 50 42 31 46 51 24
Value by Architecture, weighted, summed, normalized 0.46 0.493 0.393 0.439 0.446 0.353 0.246 0.393
1,000 0.449 0.187
-
Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G Option H Option I
10

12. Concept Maturity Level:
JPL Innovation Foundry
benchmarking before MDR/PMSR
Preliminary
Trade Space Implementation
Cocktail Napkin Baseline Concept Baseline
CML 1 CML 2 CML 3 CML 4 CML 5 CML 6 CML 7 CML 8
TRL 6
Initial Feasibility
Integrated Concept
Point Design Integrated
Baseline
11

13. An onramp to the NASA project lifecycle
JPL Innovation Foundry
• Portfolio validation, trade-space focusing
• Point-design concept  Release of Draft AO
Competed Projects • Stable baseline  submit Step 1 Proposal
• Deep plan  submit Step 2 CSR
Advanced Studies
Concept Development • PMSR (in ΦB)
Step 1 - Proposal
Step 2 – Phase A • PDR  KDP-C
Phase B – Prelim
Design & TRL 6
CML 1 CML 2 CML 3 CML 4 CML 5 CML 6 CML 7 CML 8
Phase B –
Pre-Phase A – Phase A PD & TRL6
Concept Development
Advanced Studies • Preliminary design
 KDP-C
• Validation via trades & cost
estimates  KDP-B
• Requirements defined  SRR
• “Target” concept  KDP-
A
• Point-design Mission Study Report
• Decadal Survey white papers, SMD initiation of a Pre-Project
12

14. JPL Innovation Foundry
Accessing the Matrix. Managing the Environment.
APPLYING EXPERTS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
13

15. ¼ of the JPL population
JPL Innovation Foundry
engages in proposals
27%, 2010 data
= 50 Lab employees
13 provided institutional support
334 provided Program Office, Line,
Review, or Service Support
1026 directly created proposals
14

16. A-Team focuses small, expert teams
JPL Innovation Foundry
where the leverage is highest
A-Team Concept team
Synthesis
Gate Team X Cost
Team X Team X Heritage
Incubation Concept Portfolio
Gate • Open trade space Gate Gate
Proposal
• Frame key Gate
questions
• Analyze drivers
• Derive and assess
partials
Fundamental Concept baseline
engineered, costed, Step 1 baseline
feasibility of one
validated ready for proposal
approach validated
development
quantitatively
Trade space understood 1-3 reference
Salient kernel design options
documented synthesized
CML 1 CML 2 CML 3 CML 4 CML 5
15

17. JPL Innovation Foundry

18. JPL Innovation Foundry

19. “Analytical fictions” innovated, “partials”
JPL Innovation Foundry quantified, viable options synthesized
Science Value
Cost
Risk
• Avoid fixating on a point solution
• Assess many architectures
• Understand tradespace maneuverability
18

20. Concurrent engineering efficiently
JPL Innovation Foundry advances to CML 4
• Architectures
• Space Missions
• Flight Systems
• Instruments
19

21. JPL Innovation Foundry

22. Upgraded concurrent engineering theaters
based on experience of 103 studies
JPL Innovation Foundry
21

23. JPL Innovation Foundry
Capturing the Wealth of Lessons Learned
PRE-PROJECT PRINCIPLES &
PRACTICES
22

24. Guidance for each concept element
JPL Innovation Foundry
Technical Programmatic
• Science Objectives & Requirements • Acquisition and Surveillance
• Mission Development • Project Organization
• Spacecraft/Instrument System Design • Schedules & Margins
• Ground System Design • Cost Estimation & Risks
• Technical Risk • Project Scope
• Technology • Documentation
• Inheritance • NEPA Compliance
• Master Equipment Lists • Subsystem Make-Buy
• Technical Margins • Work Breakdown Structure
• Trade Studies • Testbeds, Models & Spares
• Modeling & Simulation • Export Compliance
• Launch Services • Mission Assurance Management
• Planetary Protection
• Verification & Validation
23

25. …organized in the progressive
JPL Innovation Foundry CML framework
24

26. …and Web-hosted for partner teams
JPL Innovation Foundry
25

27. JPL Innovation Foundry

28. Summary: JPL Innovation Foundry
JPL Innovation Foundry
is improving NASA mission formulation
• Concepts (CML 1-6)
– New tools for low maturity stages where leverage is highest
– Seamless transitions through the stages of maturation
• Campaigns (CML 5-6)
– Hand-crafting of the pitch
• Formulation skills
– Excellence in more than technical dimensions
• Knowledge management
– Systematic leveraging of already vetted knowledge products
27

29. Dan McCleese, Director
daniel.j.mccleese@jpl.nasa.gov
Brent Sherwood, Manager
brent.sherwood@jpl.nasa.gov
JPL Innovation Foundry