The document summarizes the evolution of the Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) organization for NASA's Ares I-X mission. Key aspects included establishing an SE&I office to incorporate personnel from ground and flight operations, expanding integrated design and analysis to cover both flight and ground activities, and detailed assembly, integration and testing plans. The SE&I organization worked closely with engineering teams from multiple NASA centers and contractors to develop requirements, conduct verification, and ensure integration across all subsystems for the Ares I-X flight test.

1. Marshall Smith, Systems Engineering and Integration Chief
Barry Bryant, Deputy SE&I Chief
www.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
♦ Summary
National 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
integration
National 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 Deputy
National 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 IPT
National 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, Boeing
National 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&V
National 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-assemblies
National 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 agreements
National 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 39B
National 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, 45th
National 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, MSFC
National 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 system
National 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 consideration
National 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 Data
National 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 it
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 20

21. http://WWW.NASA.GOV
http://www.nasa.gov/aresIX