1. Broad-Based Teams
Case Study #2 – Max Launch Abort System
Project Management Challenge 2009
Daytona Beach, Florida
February 24-25, 2009
Dawn M. Schaible
NASA Engineering and Safety Center
Engineering Excellence 1
3. NESC Overview
• In 2003, the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was formed as a
response to a Columbia Accident Investigation Board observation
• The NESC mission is to provide the Agency’s Programs and Projects with
rigorous independent technical perspectives on their most critical technical
issues
Five years later – The NESC remains independent:
• Centrally managed and funded through the Office of Chief Engineer
• Small staff of senior leaders and technical experts to lead broad-based engineering
teams in “tiger team” fashion
• Unaffiliated with and unbiased by any specific NASA Program or Center
• Has an independent engineering chain of command to assure an avenue for
consideration of all points of view
• Facilitating hands-on design and development experience
Engineering Excellence 3
4. NESC Background
NESC emphasis is to create broad-based teams to enable networks
that discourage silos
– Recruit team membership – Facilitate inter-Center
from a broad community collaboration
– Increase inter-Center – Encourage inter-Center
knowledge and information relationships and
flow communities of practice
Engineering Excellence 4
6. Original Action
• NASA’s former Associate Administrator for Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate, Scott Horowitz, asked the NESC
to develop an alternate design as risk mitigation for the Orion
Launch Abort System (LAS) concept. The alternate concept will
be demonstrated by a pad abort test
– The highest risk (at that time) for the Orion LAS design was the Attitude
Control Motor (ACM)
– Team is focused on LAS concepts that eliminate or mitigate the need for
complex controls
• “Max” LAS (MLAS) named in honor of Maxime Faget, the
original designer of the Project Mercury capsule and holder of
the patent for the “Aerial Capsule Emergency Separation
Device” (escape tower)
Engineering Excellence 6
7. MLAS Task, Approach, and Success Criteria
• Task:
– Develop an alternate LAS design as risk mitigation for the
Orion LAS. Demonstrate the alternate concept with a pad
abort flight test
• Approach:
– Strive to identify the simplest design that will satisfy launch
abort requirements while maximizing nominal ascent
performance
– Implement flight test by using off-the-shelf parts wherever
possible to minimize cost and shorten schedule
• Success Criteria:
– Obtain sufficient flight test data to assess performance,
validate models/tools, and support an MLAS Objective
System design
Engineering Excellence 7
8. MLAS Conceptual Design
Replace Flight Test
With Vehicle
Candidate MLAS MLAS Flight Test
Objective System Vehicle Design
Current
Orion ALAS
Engineering Excellence 8
9. MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Configuration
• Flight Test Vehicle (FTV) configuration has evolved as the design
has matured, driven by rapid prototype/off-the-shelf hardware
approach
• Current MLAS configuration has four center-clustered MK-70
motors aft-mounted in a separable boost skirt
– Early plan to fly forward-mounted motors would have required
development of a manifold to accommodate thrust dispersions
– Manifold development posed a high project risk
– Aft-mounted MK-70 motors addressed the thrust dispersion problem
without the manifold
• Objective system flight stability hardware simulated with planar
fins attached to a separable coast skirt
• FTV flight will demonstrate stable coast configuration, drogue-
assisted turnaround, Crew Module (CM)-fairing separation, and
alternate CM parachute recovery
Engineering Excellence 9
11. MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Expanded View
Forward Fairing
CM Simulator
Coast Skirt
Motor Cage
Boost Skirt
Frangible Joints
Engineering Excellence 11
12. Candidate Objective System – FTV Relationship
Forward Fairing Shape
& Motor Protuberances
Flight
Test
Vehicle
Conventional Fins
Sized to Match Grid
Fin Stability Increment to
Achieve Early Passive Flight
Demonstration
Boost Motors Moved Aft
to Eliminate Motor Manifold Booster
Risk to Flight Test
Engineering Excellence 12
13. MLAS Concept of Operations
Candidate Objective System
Stabilizing Grid
Fin Deployment Separate Fins
Design Trade Space
Flight Test Data
Flight Test Vehicle
Boost Skirt Coast Skirt
Separation Separation
MLAS Flight Test Objectives
Separate Stabilization Devices Reorientation CM Delivery to Release
Pad Abort Initiation Powered Ascent Stable Coast
And Begin Reorientation And Stabilization Point Conditions
Engineering Excellence 13
14. CM Parachute Demonstration Concept of Ops
FTV reorientation via drogue
parachutes in Forward Fairing
CM separation from
MLAS Forward Fairing CM drogue parachute
deployment
CM Forward Bay Cover
release to extract main
parachutes
CM main
parachute
deployment
Engineering Excellence 14
15. MLAS Benefits to Constellation Program
• Demonstration of pad abort with passive controls
– First demonstration of a passively-stabilized LAS on a vehicle in
this size and weight class
• Collection of full-scale aeroacoustic environment data
– First test to acquire full-scale aeroacoustic environment data on a
faired capsule concept
• Demonstration of CM fairing/separation
– First test to demonstrate full scale fairing/CM separation and
measure associated aerodynamic and orientation data
• Demonstration of CM main parachute deployment using Shuttle
Solid Rocket Booster recovery-based system
Engineering Excellence 15
16. MLAS Benefits to Agency
• Demonstration of rapid large-scale
design and concurrent hardware
procurement
• Opportunity to anchor
aerodynamic analysis to flight data
for a design strongly influenced by
analytical models and engineering Transonic Wind Tunnel Testing at Calspan
assumptions
• Accumulation of flight data for a
unique length-to-diameter vehicle
• Unique opportunity for hands-on
training afforded the next
generation of Agency engineers
Resident Engineer Omar Torres testing
separation dynamics at University of Washington
Engineering Excellence 16
18. MLAS Team Structure
MLAS
Project Planning and Project Management Mentors
Control Project Manager – R Roe and
L Leybold Deputy PM – T Wilson Resident Engineers
Chief Engineer – M Gilbert
SE&I
S&MA Aerodynamics Propulsion
D Schaible
G. Kelm D Schuster C Schafer
J Berry - MSE
Structures Avionics
Software Landing
and Mechanisms and Instrumentation
M Aguilar D Yuchnovicz
M Kirsch / T Palm M Davis
SpaceFibre CM Parachutes
G. Rakow C Shreves
Ground Ops
Flight Mechanics Loads and Dynamics
B Underwood / S Minute
N Dennehy C Larsen / K Elliott
B Hall – Vehicle Mgr
NESC Technology Demonstrators
Engineering Excellence 18
19. MLAS Team Composition
• Extended MLAS team comprised of 150 members, including
engineers, analysts, mentors, and resident engineers from
across the Agency and industry
Engineering Excellence 19
20. Residents and Mentors
Residents Mentors
Gary Dittemore (JSC) T.K. Mattingly
Geminesse Dorsey (JSC) Jerry McCullough
Joe Grady (GRC) Tom Modlin
Samantha Manning (KSC) Dave Shemwell
Samuel Miller (LaRC) Milt Silveira
Theodore Muench (GSFC) Bob West
Terrian Nowden (GRC)
Sarah Quach (KSC)
Jerry Sterling (GSFC)
Omar Torres (LaRC)
Engineering Excellence 20
21. MLAS Resident Engineer Opportunity
• Unique opportunity for
direct, on-going interaction
between MLAS residents, Resident
engineers
NASA Technical Fellows, assisting in
composite fin
and Apollo-era veterans testing
• Limited scope and short
duration of the MLAS
project provides rare
systems engineering
experience
• “Off-line” nature of the
project provides an
opportunity to try-and-fail
Resident engineers Sam Miller and Gary
Dittemore performing camera vibration testing
Engineering Excellence 21
23. MLAS Project Management Approach
• Focus on over-arching objectives
– Meeting over-arching objectives defines MLAS Project success
– Manage critical path
– Additional requirements to buy themselves in
• MLAS Team requirements and design baseline are controlled by team’s
MLAS Configuration Control Board (CCB)
• Project Manager – Chair
• Deputy Project Manager
• Chief Engineer
• Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Lead
• Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Lead
• Subteam Leads
• Periodic co-locations and virtual integrated design sessions
• Providing design, development, and test training opportunity through Resident
Engineer Program
Engineering Excellence 23
24. MLAS Rapid Prototype Philosophy
• Limited flight test objectives
• Conservative loads and dynamic
environments
• Proto-flight structural margins
• Low cost, minimum lead time materials
and processes - Not mass driven
• Statically stable during boost and coast
• Ballast vehicle and adjust launch stool
angle to meet trajectory constraints
• Design schedule prioritized by
production and assembly sequence
• Maximum use of proven, off-the-shelf
hardware
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gulfport
Engineering Excellence 24
25. MLAS Systems Engineering Process
• Mission Systems Engineer identified to lead design and trade study activities
• S&MA representatives included as part of core SE&I team
• FTV configuration designed using rapid prototype philosophy
• Utilize Products Needs List to track data deliverables between teams
• Defining documents:
– Requirements, Interface Control Documents, Design Data Book, Flight Test Plan,
Ground Operations Plan
– Minimized formal documentation and eliminated boilerplate information as much
as practical
• Streamlined configuration control process
– Utilize standing meeting for MLAS CCB for design changes and reviews
• Tailored independent review process
– Goal is a thorough, independent review with a variety of perspectives,
experiences, and processes considered
• Safety process employs hazard analysis and risk management processes
without detailed failure mode and effects analysis
Engineering Excellence 25
26. MLAS Review Process
• MLAS tailored independent review
process
– Not the formalized Preliminary/Critical
Design Review process
– Conducting a series of Independent
Technical Reviews (ITR)
• ITR1 conducted in November 2007
- Gain confidence to procure long-lead
materials and tooling
• ITR2 conducted in April 2008
- Conducted sub team peer reviews in
preparation
- Gain confidence to fabricate flight
hardware and ground support
equipment
• ITR3 planned for March 2009
- Gain confidence to conduct the pad
ITR 2 at LaRC in April 2008
abort flight test
Engineering Excellence 26
28. Collaboration Approach
• Utilizing PDMLink in Windchill for configuration management
• Virtual team environment
– Using WebEx and Windchill
– Monthly co-location of team
– Establish multi-disciplinary teams to address integrated issues
– Virtual integrated design sessions
– Utilize instant messaging and desktop sharing
Engineering Excellence 28
29. General Co-Location Goals
• Goals of co-locating:
– Common understanding of project goals and success criteria
– Facilitate rapid decision making
– Reinforce project schedule, critical path, and upcoming
milestones
– Align expectations for upcoming deliverables
– Build teamwork
Team co-locations at LaRC
Engineering Excellence 29
30. Co-Location Approach
• Co-location sessions are organized working sessions, not a formal
meeting/design review
• Begin each co-location with a kick-off briefing
– Reinforce project success criteria and exit criteria
• Begin each day with a 30 minute kick-off meeting at 8:30
– Meeting has a definite end
– Assign actions for small groups to work, with achievable deliverables
– Identify hot topics for the day
• Utilize white board to schedule “hot topics” – a list of meetings,
times, participants, and objectives
• Meetings, priorities, and hot topics facilitated by SE&I
• All team members, including mentor and resident teams, expected to
attend each co-location if possible
Engineering Excellence 30
31. Between Co-Locations
• Regular Team Tag-ups
– Team leads or representatives
expected to participate
– Communicate major results, issues,
and product needs
– Frequency of meetings adjusted
during each stage of project
– Splinter meetings scheduled as
needed
– Agendas for tag-up meetings are
Team Tag-up at Wallops Flight Facility
projected a week ahead of time and
distributed daily
– Use forum for MLAS CCBs as
needed
• Conduct periodic schedule reviews and action status reviews
• Communication, communication, communication
Engineering Excellence 31
38. Project Status
CM avionics buildup complete and integrated test underway
Composite fins
Engineering Excellence 38
39. Upcoming Milestones
• Vehicle integration and test complete – early March 2009
• Independent Technical Review #3 – early March 2009
• Vehicle transfer to pad complete – Mid-March 2009
• Target flight test date – March 27, 2009
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gulfport
Engineering Excellence 39
