Application of System Operational Effectiveness Methodology to Space Launch Vehicle Development and Operations

A

Abstract

model pr

operation

a focal po

space lau

developm

considera

developm

points of

Effective

Operation

developm

and opera

fielded sy

provides

operation

1. Syst

The Syst

program

requirem

system in

objective

essential

destinatio

The SOE

operation

Concept

missions

ascent fli

establish

requirem

out of the

failure co

Support (

transport

Application

Mic NASA Mars Hunt 2 michael

– The Depa

rovides an ex

n of space la

oint from wh

unch vehicle

ment and ope

ation during

ment of spac

f measureme

eness, Proces

nal Effective

ment process

ations in lieu

ystems. The

some key in

nal support s

tem Opera

em Operatio

system engi

ments. The ea

n availability

es. The appl

to providing

ons.

E process flo

ns and uses i

of Operation

set, custome

ight operatio

ed, then the

ments can be

e design, the

onditions. T

(ILS) to prov

tation, assem

n of System

D

chael D. Watso shall Space Fli tsville, AL 358 256-544-3186 l.d.watson@na

rtment of De

xceptional fr

unch vehicle

hich to direc

s. The applic

eration effor

the design p

e launch veh

nt including

ss Efficiency

eness In add

s is defined p

u of the tradi

tailoring an

nsights into t

systems.

ational Eff

onal Effectiv

ineering in th

arly identific

y, support pr

lication of th

g cost effecti

w is illustrat

is an essentia

ns. This und

ers to be serv

ons, supporta

major functi

defined with

e failure asse

This knowled

vide timely,

mbly, integrat

m Operati

evelopmen

on ight Center 812 asa.gov

efense (DoD

ramework fo

es and their

ct and measu

cation of the

rt leads to ve

phase. This p

hicles for hum

g System Per

y, System Ef

dition, the ap

providing the

itional broad

nd application

the operation

fectiveness

veness (SOE

he considera

cation of the

rocesses, and

hese principa

ive access to

ted in Figure

al first step.

derstanding i

ved, manufa

ability, and s

ions necessa

h the support

essments bec

dge provides

cost effectiv

tion, test, an

ional Effec

nt and Op

D) defined Sy

or an afforda

supporting i

ure technical

e SOE model

ery specific a

paper provid

man explora

rformance, S

ffectiveness,

pplication of

e unique asp

der SOE con

n of the SOE

nal design dr

s (SOE) Fr

) framework

ation of the s

ese requirem

d cost in acco

als in early la

o space for a

e 1. Underst

This unders

includes the

acturing conc

sustaining en

ary for the la

tability capa

come availab

s the basis fo

ve resolution

nd launch op

ctiveness t

perations

NAS

ystem Opera

able approach

nfrastructure

effectivenes

l to a space l

approaches a

des a mappin

ation by addr

System Avai

, Life Cycle

f the SOE m

pects of spac

ntext that exa

E model to s

rivers, capab

ramework

k was establi

system’s ope

ments provide

omplishing t

aunch vehicl

a variety of m

tanding the c

standing sho

capabilities

cepts, launch

ngineering.

aunch vehicl

abilities prop

ble from whi

or planning th

n to failures

erations. Th

to Launch

Gary W. SA Marshall Sp Huntsville, A 256-544 Gary.W.Kelle

ational Effec

h to the deve

e. The SOE

ss and proce

launch vehic

and measure

ng of the SO

ressing the S

lability, Tec

Cost, and A

model to the l

ce launch veh

amines large

space launch

bility phasin

k

ished to guid

erational use

es for a more

the overall m

le definition

missions and

context of th

ould be captu

required to

h site proces

Once this un

e and the ass

perly accoun

ich to identif

he Integrated

during manu

he ILS inclu

h Vehicle

Kelley pace Flight Cen

AL 35812 4-5826 [email protected]

ctiveness (SO

elopment an

model provi

ess efficienci

cle’s

s that requir

E model to t

SOE model k

chnical

Affordable

aunch vehic

hicle produc

e quantities o

h vehicles

g, and

de the early

es and suppo

e effective

mission

n activities is

d mission

he launch veh

ured in the

achieve the

ssing, launch

nderstanding

sociated des

nted. Flowin

fy the probab

d Logistics

ufacturing,

des the

nter

OE)

nd

ides

ies of

re

the

key

cle

ction

of

ort

s

hicle

h and

g is

sign

ng

able

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120015241 2019-08-30T22:16:30+00:00Z

identifica

support p

demonstr

scale eva

flight tes

SOE mod

Understan sustainabl not a sing mission ty cargo, and certificati types, a la services) a mission). single mis successfu to be affo developm The key c and then t systems th

ation of appr

policies can b

rated during

aluation of th

t. As the lau

del has diffe

nding the mis le program ov gle mission. R ypes. Mission d beyond eart

on, and paylo aunch vehicle and sustainab It is essentia ssion viewpoi l. From a lon rdable to cust ment of a launc construct supp to support the hat were depl

ropriate line

be evaluated

the flight te

he support ca

unch vehicle

erent emphas

Figure 1: App sion context a ver the life cy Rather the mis

n types are m th orbit (BEO oad/crew caps e concept may bility (start of al to have the int, performan ng term progr tomers and st ch vehicle pro ported through e launch vehic oyed in mass

replaceable

d during vari

esting of the

apabilities w

e progresses

sis points.

plication of the SO and launch ve ycle of the lau

ssion context many and broa O) cargo. Each sule services r y be defined c f manufacture correct viewp nce is a key g am viability v takeholders. T ogram.

h the SOE fra cle design dur such as land

units (LRU)

ious system t

launch vehic

while providi

through the

OE Model in the L ehicle concep unch vehicle. is described adly can be de h of these mis requirements. considering bo e through pos point when lo gate which mu view point, su These viewpo amework is to ring operation vehicles, airc

) and definit

tests, but mo

cle. These f

ing beneficia

life cycle ph

Launch Vehicle L pt relationship For a launch as a launch c efined as crew ssion types br . Deriving d oth performan st flight analy ooking at the l ust be achieve ustainability i oints must bo o design the la ns. The origin craft, etc. Th

tion of spare

ost effective

flight tests pr

al support fu

hases, the ap

Life Cycle p is essential t h vehicle, the m apability supp wed, low earth

rings a unique directly from t

nce (mass to ysis and feedb

launch vehicl ed for the mis is crucial for t th be met in t

aunch vehicle nal SOE mod hese systems o

es policy. Th

ly are

rovide a full

unctions to th

pplication of

to defining a mission conte porting many h orbit (LEO) e set of lift m these mission orbit, flight back for each

le concept. F ssion to be the launch ve the definition e for supporta del considered operate in ma

he

l

he

f the

ext is y ) mass, n rom a ehicle and ability d any

different areas and environments and deployed by units. Launch vehicles are generally manufactured as needed and deployed individually. Deployment is typically to a single site although there are vehicles that have one or two additional launch sites that may support their vehicles. This leads to some different philosophies on design for support and supporting the design as illustrated in Figure 2. During definition and design, the launch vehicle supportability concept must be defined and understood to provide guidance on the launch vehicle design.

Design for support of a launch vehicle can be defined into several categories: Integrated Logistics Support ILS), Supportability Requirements, Flight and Launch Operations Definition, and Total

Ownership Cost (TOC)/Life Cycle Cost (LCC). Supportability requirements are the key aspect in driving the launch vehicle design to a supportable and cost effective system. The requirements address not only the system characteristics (launch availability, reliability, maintainability, producability, human factors, accessibility, transportability, etc.). ILS planning considers how the launch vehicle will be maintained, supply chain management (SCM), sparing philosophy, transportation, ground support equipment, personnel training and certification. Flight and Launch Operations provide the definition of the operational control centers and the operations team to support both launch and flight operations. TOC (often referred to as LCC) provides key evidence of the impact of design decisions on the Production and Operations (P&O) costs. The TOC allows the design to be driven to a more cost efficient design during the P&O phase.

Support the Design of a launch vehicle can be defined into the following categories: Sustaining Engineering, Execute ILS, Launch Availability Maintenance, Incorporate Block Upgrades, Provide Customer Support, Affordability Analysis, and Manage Safety. Sustaining engineering encompasses production engineering, post flight analysis, configuration item nonconformance/discrepancy

dispositions, obsolescence mitigation, and technology refresh needs. Block upgrades are incorporated into the launch vehicle as needed through the program. During P&O the ILS planning as defined above, is executed. Launch availability is maintained to ensure the vehicle maintain their availability over the life of the program. As block upgrades, technology refresh, and obsolescence are implemented, launch availability can improve or degrade of the life of the program. Customer support is a key activity to assist customers understanding of vehicle capabilities and environments in order to ensure the payloads fit within these. Affordability analysis provides updates to the TOC to ensure vehicle Production and Operations cost are managed within the desired envelop. Safety is a critical aspect to be managed for ground crew operations and, where applicable, flight crew.

The design for support features are directly coupled to the support the design characteristics. This coupling requires that the basic philosophies and approaches be established in support of the design requirements early in the design phase (Phase A). These requirements guide the design of the launch vehicle, the design then drives out the specific operational procedures and methods needed to support the launch vehicle during P&O. If this coupling is not in place, then the design of the vehicle will not be compatible with the program plans for support resulting in a support plan driven by other factors in vehicle design such as mass efficiency, development cost minimization, etc. These other design factors lead to expensive and time consuming support approaches if not balanced with a clear definition of the support concept guiding the design.

Balancing interrelati system av supporting launch ve storage tim applied du unless spe affect mis maintenan actions su all vehicle maintenan g launch vehic ionships of th vailability mo g the mission hicle, the mis me, for a laun uring the asse ecific design f ssion availabi nce actions ar uch as design e manufacture nce actions ca Figure cle mission pe e requiremen del works we n. These syste ssion executio nch vehicle co embly of the v features are in lity, only mis re executed to modification ed over the lif an be brought

Figure 3: Cou

2: Design for Sup

erformance a nts as illustrate ell in describin ems spend of on time is rou onstitutes the vehicle and th ncluded (i.e., ssion reliabilit o return the la s, may take p fe of the prog t about from b upling Between M pport/Support the nd support re ed in Figure 3 ng the relatio

their life cyc ughly 10 minu

bulk of its lif he launch ope redundancy, ty. For failur aunch vehicle lace to ensure gram) do not e both prelaunc Mission Performan e Design Constru equirements re 3. For system nship in exec le in the field utes. The asse fe. Conseque erations. Fail predefined fa res occurring to operation. e future vehic encounter the ch anomalies a

nce and Mission uct

equires an un ms such as veh

cuting the mis d after manufa embly time, i ently most sup

lures in flight ailure states) a

prior to launc . Following t cles (i.e., the f e same issues. and flight ano

Support nderstanding o hicle or aircra ssion and acturing. For including any pport effort is t are not repai and so do not ch, the suppor this, maintena fleet consistin . These omalies. of the aft, a r a y s irable t rt and ance ng of

2. Syst

The SOE and then t basic mod System A Design Ef characteri objectives Designing Effectiven System Pe engineerin and infras “Support The SOE System A context fo objective analysis in quantifiab emphasis Efficiency trade/sugg

tem Opera

model provid to manage the del structure. Availability, Pr ffectiveness, M istics, when p s and program g for optimal ness and Syst erformance o ng aspects tha structure (Sup the Design”. approach is u Availability, Pr or the “trade s of maximizin nputs from co ble metric or v on certain ch y). The charac gested change

ational Eff

des an excelle ese characteri The model h rocess Efficie Mission Effec properly balan m support obje Figure Operational E em Life Cycl f the space la at account for pport the Desi

used to explai rocess Efficie space” availab ng the System orresponding value. Along haracteristics a cteristics/attri e results in th

fectiveness

ent structure t istics during P has 4 major ch ency, and TO ctiveness, and nced lead to a ectives. 4: System Opera Effectiveness le Cost (LCC) aunch vehicle( r the cost-effe ign). Process in the depend ency, and the ble to a projec m Operational disciplines fo with the metr and attributes ibutes are pro e Mission Eff

s (SOE) M

to address the Production an haracteristics C. These bas d Affordable system whic tional Effectivene

with the SOE )/TOC. The fo (s) (Design fo ective respons Efficiency an

ency and inte Life Cycle C ct manager al Effectivenes or a trade or s ric, each inpu s (Design Effe ovided a rank fectiveness.

Model App

e support char nd Operations groupings fo sic characteris Operational E ch meets both

ess (SOE) Diagra

E model requ focus isn’t stri or Support), b siveness and r nd its correspo

erplay betwee Cost. This ove long with the s. The SOE m suggested cha ut is given a w

ectiveness, Sy and the avera

plication

racteristics du s (P&O). Figu r Technical P stics are comb Effectiveness mission perf   am uires a balance ictly on Syste but includes m relevance of t onding branc en the Technic erarching pers articulation o model require ange which ar weighting fact ystem Availab age amongst t uring developm ure 4 illustrate Performance, bined to prod . These formance e between Sy em Availabili multiple the support sy hes are the

cal Performan spective provi of the overall es proactive re then assign

tor that propo bility, Proces the ranks for

ment es the duce stem ty or ystem nce, ides a ned a ortions ss a

The SOE Effectiven define acc context K order to a represente and MOP requireme Typically For a laun Performan used to gu economic through to and fit we properly i progress c

2.1. D

Design Ef

2

For a laun Table 1 li Capabiliti orbit inser serves. T missions. space stru vehicle. T be taken i objectives applied to factors, th model refers ness (SOE). ceptable and m KPPs are the re dvance to the ed as Measure s provide gui ents, including , a portion of nch vehicle th nce, Flight Co uide developm c viability (aff ools such as E ell within the integrates all can be proper

Design Effec

ffectiveness in F

.1.1. Techn

nch vehicle sp sts these metr ies are defined

rtion accuracy hese include

Payload can uctures, etc. T The SOE mod in many ways s. In this sens o different mis he System Per to Key Perfo Within NASA measureable S equired techn e developmen es of Effectiv idance to Age g stakeholder f the MOPs an hese have trad ontrol, Avion ments. These fordability) of Earned Value overall SOE of these and p rly understood

ctiveness

ncludes Tech Figure 5: Design

nical Perfor

pecific TPMs rics, organize d as performa y. System fun various missi n further be b These function del also includ s but are relate se, Priorities r ssion types. T rformance of ormance Param A KPPs are u System Capab nical performa nt phase (Phas veness (MOE) ency managem r expectations nd MOEs are ditionally cons nics. In some

are tied back f the launch v Measuremen framework. C provides an ex d as an interre hnical Perform for Support/Desi

rmance

can be identi ed by categori ance attribute nctions are th ion the variou roken into pla ns are essenti des Priorities ed to importa represent the These three fa the launch ve meters (KPPs used in variou bilities for tec ance a techno ses C, D). In t ) and Measure ment on how w s, of the launc managed as T sisted of seve programs, TP k to stakehold vehicle. Often nt (EVM). Th Considering a xcellent fram elated set of m

mance and Sys

ign Effectiveness

ified which ch ies and group

s including m he mission cap us mission typ anetary scienc ial in understa as Technical ance assigned relative weig actors are link ehicle can be s) as measurem us ways. Tech chnology dev ology develop the developm es of Perform well the Prog ch vehicle dev Technical Per eral categories PMs such as P der expectatio n financial me hese EVM me

all these form mework in whi measures. stem Availab portion of the SO haracterize th ed by functio mass to orbit, pabilities and pes such as cr ce missions, e anding the pr l Performance to accomplis ghtings of the ked and be m determined. ments of Syst hnology prog velopment act pment must de ment phases, K mance (MOP). gram is accom velopment. rformance Me s including M Production C ons to ensure t etrics are repo etrics are anot ms of KPPs, th ich technical bility as indica   OE Diagram he Technical P ons and capab

delta v, gros d scenarios the

rewed, payloa earth orbiting oper use cont e characteristi shing specific capabilities p measuring the tem Operation grams use KPP tivities. In thi emonstrate in KPPs are . These MOE mplishing the easures (TPM Mass, Propulsi Cost have also

the long term orted separate ther form of K he SOE mode and operation ated in Figure Performance. bilities.

s lift off weig e launch vehi ad, and combi g missions, lar text of the lau ics. Priorities c mission provided as integrated set nal Ps to is n Es Ms). ion been m ely KPPs el nal e 5. ght, icle ined rge unch s can t of

Prop Fl Avi

2

The SOE Producibi because th derived an Readiness listed in T M Fl System A System C Categories Mass pulsion Perfor Clearance ight Performa ionics Perform

.1.2. System

model for Sy ility. These br hey may cons nd derived tec s (leading up Table 2. Categories Mission Readin ight Performa Availability pr haracteristics rmance ance mance Ta

m Availabil

ystem Availab ranches for Sy strain the over chnical requir to launch) an ness ance rovides a mea s describe the Technical P Ma D Spec Flight Perf L Se S Maximum D Load D Orbital In Data B Data Proce Mem Communic able 1: Techn

lity

bility is comp ystem Availab rall design so rements. The nd Flight Perfo Technical P Pro System Launch Launc Main Mission Succ Table 2: asure of the Sy operation and Performance M ss to Orbit Dry Mass ific Impulse Thrust formance Res (FPR) Lift Off eparation Stability Dynamic Pre d Indication Delta V sertion Accur us Bandwidth essor Through mory Usage cation Bandw nical Perform osed of Relia bility are qua olution(s) and ese system cha

ormance. Spe Performance M oducibility m Readiness h Availability ch Reliability ntainability cess or Loss ( System Ava ystem Charac d performanc Metric serve essure racy h hput width mance Measur ability, Mainta ality character architecture aracteristics c ecific measur Metric y (LOM) ailability cteristics of th ce of the vehic Ty Capa Capa Capa Capa Capa Fun Fun Fun Fun Fun Capa Capa Capa Capa Capa Capa res ainability, Su ristics and imp

as well as imp can be catego res of these ch Ty Produ Suppor Suppor Relia Mainta Relia he launch veh cle as a whole ype ability ability ability ability ability nction nction nction nction nction ability ability ability ability ability ability upportability, mportant task mpact the set o

orized as Miss haracteristics ype ucibility rtability rtability ability inability ability hicle. These e. They indic and of sion are cate

how effec priorities. Launch A build and rate and p vehicle to but takes Launch A after a sys The qualit solution a influence integratio performan correspon evaluation through b Requirem definition significan Reliability Effective mission p objective and volum reliability of a speci inability t safety ma way to inc approved lift off in vehicle w All system Maintaina maintenan resources. maintain t activities, system ma Great mai a design i monitorin

ctive the overa From a laun Availability. S prepare the la production cap o clear the pad into account t Availability als stem failure o

ty characteris and can also im

the requirem n, repair and nce and opera nding decision n of earlier sy

lock upgrade ments for quali n and architect nt re-work cos

2.1.2.1.

y for a launch design for rel rofiles, and o is to minimiz me constraints y. Mission reli fied mission p to achieve the argin, is one w crease missio by redundanc order to ensu ill launch as p ms planned fo

2.1.2.2.

ability is defin nce is conduc . The emphas the system. In methods, and aintenance re intenance pro nfluence pers ng and fault lo

all system per nch vehicle pe System Readi aunch vehicle pacity to mee d within the re the series of a so considers m or anomaly. stics and attrib

mpact the end ents for enabl maintenance, ational require ns could affec ystem design p s). ity characteris ture design pr sts when a ma

Reliability

h vehicle invo liability requi operational en ze the risk of f s. Generally, r iability is the profile. Missi e orbital insert way to increas n reliability b cy, launch rel ure their availa

planned witho or flight or flig

Maintaina

ned as the abi cted by person sis on system n other words d practices us equirements an ocedures cann spective, time ocalization, B rforms in ligh erspective, Sy iness focuses e for the first t the launch r equired launc allowed launc maintenance butes (such as d product perf ling products , and testing. ements, a trad ct block upgra processes for stics will be c rocesses. Add ature design a

y

olves both lau ires an unders nvironment(s) failure within reliability trad ability of a sy ion reliability tion point). D se mission rel by tolerating f liability is deg ability during out system fa ght failure rec

ability

ility of a syste nnel using spe maintainabili s, maintainabi sed to influen nd associated not overcome ely focus is re uilt-in test (B ht of the Syste ystems Availa on the aspect launch attemp rate. Launch ch window set ch windows, o downtime to s availability formance req and life cycl If there is a c de analyses ne ades from the

an optimal li

considered ea ding these cha and end produ

unch reliability standing of th

in which the n the defined a deoffs are bet ystem to perf y only include De-rating, defi iability. Impl failures in flig graded as all r g flight. Laun ilure (ground covery must o em to be repa ecified skill le ity has the obj ility engineeri ce the system d costs for bot poor system a quired on: Ph BIT) implemen em Performan ability addres ts of producti mpt. This inclu Availability i t. This is not one of which return the veh

etc...) impact quirements. Th le services suc conflict betwe eeds to be per e original base ife cycle-bala arly in both th aracteristics a ucts need chan

y and mission he mission and system will p availability, c tween mission form its requir es failures tha ined as purpo lementing red ght. However redundant com nch reliability d systems or la operate prope

aired and resto evels and pres bjective of red ing can be de m design in or th preventive and equipmen hysical acces ntation (cove nce capabiliti ses System R on, assembly udes consider is focused on t just a single the vehicle m hicle to launc

t the end prod hese characte ch as fabricat een cost, sche rformed. The eline, requirin anced resoluti he stakeholder at a later point nged to accom n (or flight) re d operational perform. The cost, schedule n reliability a red functions at lead to miss oseful over-de dundant comp r, while flight mponents mu y is the probab aunch vehicle erly upon lift

ored to servic scribed proce ducing the tim escribed as the der to minimi and correctiv nt maintainab ssibility, Perfo erage and effic

ies, functions, Readiness and y, and support ration of laun n the ability fo launch windo must launch. ch ready statu duct design eristics also tion, assembly edule, risk, or results and ng another on (conducte r requirement t in time will mmodate them eliability. capabilities, e primary e, weight, pow and launch

for the durat sion failures ( esign to allow ponents is ano t reliability is ust be availab bility that the e systems) fai off. ce when edures and me and cost to e composite o ize necessary ve maintenanc bility design. ormance ciency), , and d t to nch or the ow us y and d ts add m. wer, ion (i.e., w a other le on ilure. o of y ce. From

Eliminatio to reduce Intrinsic f  M  In  D  Pr  F  A Maintenan of logistic encompas as engines interface p technolog between c ground ba enhanced procedure of range c For expen problems. consequen designed t designed-maintenan marking o Supportab maintenan anomalies maintenan factors tha NASA, th of designi elements o addresses  Sy  Sy  Su  Su  C  T  F  P on of false ala the time it tak factors in mai Modularity nteroperability Diagnostics rognostics ail Safe Access

nce task analy cs support to s sses both line s or stages. In protocols to f gy using comm components c ased monitori capability fo es. Prognostic conditions, im ndable launch . These may nces in overal to revert to a in structural a nce can be ea of hand holds

2.1.2.3.

bility is the in nce procedure s. Supportabil nce data colle at contribute t hese topics are ing for suppor of logistics su : ystem trainin ystem Docum upply suppor ustaining eng o Dimin o Techn Corrosion prev Test and suppo acilities Man ackaging, Ha

arms, and Fai kes for a prop

ntainability m y ysis methods sustain requir replaceable u nteroperabilit facilitate rapid mon interface can only happ ng and record r fault detecti cs are applica mminent failur h vehicles, pro be due to new ll processing safe mode to assurance tha sily accessed and supports

Supportab

nherent quality es, to facilitat lity includes s ection, corrosi to achieving t e addressed in rtability is to upport during ng and training mentation/tech rt (including s gineering nishing manuf ology maturit vention and m ort equipment agement andling, Stora ilure diagnost perly trained m may include:

and tools pro red system eff unit (LRU) ch ty refers to th d repair and c es. This also in

en correctly. ding devices a ion and isolat able and effec re probability ognostics help w parts replac or flight perf avoid additio at components . This includ s within the ve

bility

y of a system te detection, is system suppo ion protection the optimum n the Integrat positively im g the system o g devices hnical data spares) facturing sour ty and refresh mitigation plan t, to include e age, and Trans

tics and system maintainer to ovide a detaile fectiveness le hange out as w e ability of co component en ncludes the d Diagnostics and software tion, providin ctive monitori y, and similar p identify tren cements or ma formance. In onal damage a s requiring mo des various hu ehicle’s outer , including de solation, and rt factors suc n and mitigati environment ed Logistics S mpact and redu operations and

rces and mate hment

nning (for gro embedded sys sportation (PH m prognostic isolate the fa ed understand evels. Modul well as excha omponents to nhancement/up design of phys are applicabl (built-in tests ng faster ident ing of various proactive ma nds in produc anufacturing p the event of a and secondary ore frequent m uman factors c r mold line. esign, technic timely repair ch as diagnost ion, reduced l for a stable, o Support Plan uce the requir d maintenanc

erial shortages ound based la stem test and HS&T)

s. In simple t ailure and fix

ding of necess arity for a lau ange of major o be compatib upgrade throug sical interface le and effectiv s [BITs]), that tification of n s components aintenance op tion indicatin procedures ha a failure, syst ry failures. A monitoring, c characteristic cal support da r/replacement tics, prognost logistics footp operational sy (ILSP). The rements for th e phase. Supp s aunch systems diagnostics

terms, the int it.

sary requirem unch vehicle

assemblies su ble with stand

gh “black box es so that mat ve on-board o t provide needed spares s and indicate ptimization ac ng future vehi aving uninten tems should b Access refers t checkout, and cs including cl ata, and t of system tics, real-time

print, and oth ystem. Within primary obje he various portability s) tent is ments uch ard x” ting or and e out ctions. icle nded be to the d lear her n ective

 L  St Producibi system an delivery o well as co  A  H  H Emphasis (RMS) as

2.2. P

Process E efficiency Achieving various el resource d maintenan topics are Process E  A su  A sy  A an  D L

Process E

launch ve

against th

system w

around p

work forc

Labor requirem tandardizatio

2.1.2.4.

ility is the deg nd product des of a system to osts. Items tha Are normally e Have better ac Have lower pro

on producibi well as life c

Process Effi

Efficiency refl y as shown in g Process Effi lements of log demand forec nce planning, addressed in Efficiency is e Application of upport infrast Application of ystem/produc Application of nd multi-med Development o Logistics (PBL

Efficiency ca

ehicle. The

he available

which over ut

rocedures an

ce yields idl

ments and per n (system ele

Producibi

gree to which sign to facilit o the field. Pro

at have been d easier to main cessibility fea oduction and ility can have cycle cost.

iciency

lects the manu Figure 6. It i ficiency requir gistic support casting, system

packaging an n the ILSP for

Figure nhanced by: f optimization tructure, e.g., f process desig ct production p f process impr dia technologi of innovative L).

an be measu

optimal Pro

to optimally

tilizes the fa

nd over time

e time and c

rsonnel skill r ements and pa

ility

"design for m ate timely, af oducibility is designed for p ntain atures sustaining co e a direct impa ufacturing/pro indicates the res early, con t. These includ m training, sy nd handling, t r a NASA laun e 6: Process Effic n methods to r spares optimi gn, re-engine process. rovement orie ies for docum contractual a

ured by looki

cess Efficien

y use the pro

acilities and w

e for personn

cost expende

requirements arts, test and s

manufacturing ffordable, and closely linke producibility: osts act on reliabil oduction effic size of the log ntinuous emph de supply cha ystem docume transportation nch vehicle. ciency Portion of reduce necess ization and pe ering, and con ented technol mentation and and managem

ing at the pro

ncy can be d

oduction and

workforce le

nel. A system

ed with no re

support equip g" concepts h d quality manu d to the other : lity, maintain ciency, operat gistics infrast hasis on produ ain managem entation, test a n and warehou  

the SOE Diagram

sary capital in ersonnel alloc ntrol to enhan ogies, e.g., as training. ment structures

oduction and

defined by co

d processing

eads to highe

m which und

eturn.

pment)

have been use ufacture, asse r elements of nability, and s tional and ma tructure and f uction, maint ment (Logistics and support e using, and fac

m nvestment wit cation optimi nce efficiency sset visibility s such as Perf

d assembly t

omparing the

facilities and

er costs asso

der utilizes t

d to influence embly, and availability a supportability aintenance footprint. tenance and th s Delay Time equipment, cilities. Thes

thin the system ization. y of the and prognost formance Bas

timelines for

ese timeline

d workforce

ociated with

the facilities

e as y he e) and se m tics, sed

r the

s

e. A

work

and

2

Logistics

operation

processes

training a

2

Operation

operation

includes

2

Maintena

(as appro

maintena

of the veh

perishabl

Correctiv

due to eit

lift off. F

(SRB), S

the vehic

2

Productio

stages, cr

2.3.

Technica

Performa

capable o

different

mission p

2.4.

System E

Efficienc

vehicle o

processes

program

of Techn

of the lau

Efficienc

.2.1. Logis

s includes th

n. This is pr

s and policie

and certifica

.2.2. Opera

n covers bot

n control cen

the operatio

.2.3. Main

ance covers t

opriate), test,

ance and corr

hicle to ensu

le items in cr

ve Maintenan

ther an anom

For re-useab

Space Shuttle

cle or stage.

.2.4. Produ

on involves t

rew capsules

Technica

al Effectiven

ance and the

of completin

vehicle each

planning.

System E

Effectiveness

cy of the laun

once the Syst

s used to ach

costs, or ver

nical Efficien

unch vehicle

cy.

tics

e processes p

rimarily focu

es for sparing

ation, and log

ation

th launch op

nter architect

nal procedur

tenance

the processe

, and launch

rective main

ure fuels (e.g

rew capsules

nce activitie

maly or use.

ble launch ve

e Orbiter, Cr

uction

the manufac

s, and payloa

al Effective

ness is the me

System Ava

ng the missio

h launch as f

Effectivene

s considers t

nch vehicle i

tem Perform

hieve the veh

ry inefficien

ncy. This Sy

e with the eff

put in place

used on oper

g, consumab

gistics mana

erations and

ture and the

res to assem

es to maintai

operation.

ntenance acti

g., hydrazine

s or payload

es are focuse

For expend

ehicles or sta

rew Capsule

cturing site a

ads prior to a

eness

easure of ho

ailability me

on objectives

for expendab

ess

the efficiency

itself. There

mance and Sy

hicle Techni

t, requiring m

ystem Effect

ficiency of th

to support th

ations up to

bles, tools an

gement.

d ascent fligh

operational

mble, integrat

n the vehicle

Maintenanc

ivities. Prev

e) and consu

ds) are prope

d on returnin

able launch

ages (e.g., Sp

s), maintena

activities to b

assembly an

ow the launch

easures. The

s, it must als

bles) achieve

y of the supp

e are many p

ystem Availa

ical Effective

much more p

tiveness mea

he supportin

he vehicle d

launch. Lo

nd equipmen

ht operations

team(s) in th

te, and test th

e during asse

ce consists o

ventative Ma

umable items

rly maintain

ng the vehic

vehicles, ma

pace Shuttle

ance includes

build and ass

nd integration

h vehicle ach

e launch veh

so be able to

e the objecti

port process

process optio

ability chara

eness can be

program exp

asures couple

ng processes

design in asse

ogistics inclu

nt, transporta

s. This inclu

he control ce

he launch ve

embly, integ

of both preve

aintenance in

s (e.g., batter

ned in readin

cle to a flight

aintenance a

Solid Rocke

s the activiti

semble the la

n at the laun

hieves both

hicle must no

repeatedly (

ves as requir

ses with the T

ons to suppo

acteristics are

e very efficie

pense to ach

es the system

defined by P

embly and

udes the

ation, person

udes the

enters. This

ehicle.

gration, stora

entative

nvolves serv

ry charging,

ness for launc

t ready cond

activities end

et Boosters

ies to refurbi

aunch vehicl

nch site.

the System

ot only be

(even if with

red by the

Technical

ort a launch

e defined. T

ent, improvin

ieve high lev

m characteris

Process

nnel

also

age

vicing

ch.

dition

d at

ish

le

h a

The

ng

vels

stics

2.5.T

Total Ow

launch, a

costs incl

and opera

2.6.

Affordab

measure

launch ve

Process E

operation

3. Lau

The DoD capabilitie Block Dev Developm then add c accommo as the cus near term capabilitie provide a This prov basic exam Spiral dev appropria undevelop clearly the

Total Own

wnership Cos

and sustain th

luding devel

ations costs.

Affordab

ble Operation

indicates ho

ehicle develo

Efficiency, a

ns planning a

nch Vehic

approach inc es as they are velopment, an ment is the mo capabilities in dations. The tomers becom customers w es (i.e., mass family of veh vides a more a mple of block velopment all

te for the dev ped propulsio e options ava

nership Co

st (TOC) is t

he launch ve

lopment cost

ble Operat

nal Effective

ow efficiently

opment and

and Technica

and executio

cle Block D

corporates con matured due nd Spiral Dev ost practical. n terms of stag se blocks allo me ready for t with phasing o to orbit, payl hicle from wh affordable app k developmen

ows more fle velopment of p on capabilities

ilable and the

F

ost (TOC)

the measure

ehicle progra

ts, vehicle pr

tional Effe

eness is the u

y the launch

operations.

al Effectiven

on success.

Developme

ncepts of evol e to funding pr velopment. F In Block Dev ges, new engi ow the capabi the launch cap

f developmen oad classes su hich tailored s proach to laun nt. xibility in the planetary exp s. For chemic e block develo Figure 7: Launch

)

of the total p

am. TOC co

roduction co

ectiveness

ultimate goa

h vehicle ach

This provid

ness into a vi

ent

lutionary acqu rofiles or tech From a launch velopment a b ines, solid roc ilities of the v pability. The nt funding to i upported, crew support can b nch vehicle op e final capabil ploration miss cal launch veh opment appro h Vehicle Block D

program cos

onsiders all a

osts, annual

al of any laun

hieves the int

des an integr

isible indica

uisition. Two hnology readi h vehicle deve basic vehicle cket motors, f vehicle to gro ey allow for in incrementally w capsule sup e provided to perational eff

lity of the sys sions and infr hicles, howev oach is the mo Development

st to manufa

aspects of th

sustaining en

nch vehicle p

tended outco

rated assessm

ator of develo

o options are iness. These elopment stan is fielded. Su fairing sizes, w to meet new nitial capabili y improve the pport). Note, o a variety of m fectiveness. F stem capabilit rastructure or ver, the physic ost directly ap

cture, assem

e launch veh

ngineering c

program. Th

omes of the

ment of TOC

opment and

defined to ac are Incremen nd point, the B ubsequent blo and payload w customer n ities to suppor e launch vehic , that the bloc

mission need Figure 7 prov

ties. Spiral is for new and cs define very pplicable.

mble,

hicle

costs,

his

C,

cquire ntal or Block ocks needs rt cle cks ds. vides a s very y

4. App

In applyin launch ve phases ori Figure 8. sub phase DoD typic forward a multiple c

4.1. N

Pre-syste

Technolo

mission t

launch ve

context a

vehicle.

technolog

be compl

are appro

launch ve

implemen

launch ve

requirem

Operation

plication o

ng the SOE fr hicle definitio iginally used

The DoD life es, though, are

cally has a sin approach. The contract appro F

NASA Pre-s

ems Acquisit

ogy Develop

to be suppor

ehicle. This

and its relatio

Technology

gies for deve

leted before

oved for star

ehicle culmi

ntation by P

ehicle conce

ments. These

ns Phase.

of the SOE

ramework to a on, developm in the SOE m fe cycle mode e mapped diff ngle prime co e SOE model oaches. Figure 8: Mappin

systems Acq

tion encomp

pment (Phase

rted by the la

is captured

onship to the

y starts in Pre

elopment of

the System

rt of design a

nating in the

DR. During

epts must be

e requiremen

E Model in

a launch vehi ment, and oper model develop l has three ma ferently. ontract that is becomes mul ng of DoD Life Cy

quisition (Pr

passes early c

e A), and Pre

aunch vehicl

in the Conce

e vehicle con

e-Phase A an

the launch v

Readiness R

activities. Th

e PDR. All t

g this pre-sys

well underst

nts are essent

n the Laun

cle, an unders rations is esse pment and the ain phases wh implemented lti-dimension ycle Phases to NA

re-Phase A,

concept stud

eliminary De

e is defined

ept of Opera

ncept is criti

nd continues

vehicle, in pa

Review (SRR

his phase als

technologies

stems acquis

tood includi

tial to cost e

nch Vehicl

standing of th ential. The m e NASA life c

hich map wel

d, so using the al for implem

ASA Life Cycle Pr

, Phases A, B

dies (Pre-Pha

esign (Phase

as well as th

ations. Unde

cal to design

s into Phase

articular hig

R) where the

so includes t

s must be rea

sition phase,

ing the opera

ffective oper

le Life Cy

he life cycle p mapping of the cycle phases a ll with the NA e SOE model mentation on p roject Phases

B)

ase A), Conc

e B). Durin

he concept fo

erstanding th

ning an effec

A. In gener

gh risk techno

e launch vehi

the prelimina

ady to suppo

, the mission

ations and su

rations durin

cle

phases of the e DoD life cyc

are illustrated ASA model. T is a straight programs with

cept and

ng this phase

for design of

he mission

ctive launch

ral, critical

ologies, need

icle requirem

ary design o

ort

n context and

upportability

ng the

cle d in The h

the

f the

d to

ments

f the

d

y

During th

the opera

concept i

customer

effectiven

expendab

mission c

program

vehicle s

maintena

needs), a

Technolo

maturatio

productio

of key su

Demonst

vehicle fa

System D

The laun

Support P

and susta

addresses

replaceab

managem

captured

response

complete

The prog

productio

output of

requirem

4.2. N

Systems

Assembly

design ac

assembly

phase. D

The laun

operation

develope

his phase, 80

ations and su

is captured in

rs to be supp

ness, launch

ble vehicle, t

completion.

decommissi

upport and m

ance rates (w

and obsolesce

ogy developm

on of new ca

on and opera

upportability

trations may

family. Key

Developmen

ch vehicle lo

Plan (ILSP).

ainment goal

s the logistic

ble unit (LRU

ment (SCM);

in the progr

to processin

ed to define m

gram risks at

on and opera

f this phase r

ments or spec

NASA Syste

Acquisition

y, Integratio

ctivities of th

y, integration

Depending on

ch vehicle is

n phase capa

ed with a foc

0% of the ve

upport capab

n the Concep

ported, flight

h vehicle life

the launch v

The program

ioning (Phas

maintenance

which determ

ence expecta

ment is a key

apabilities ne

ations, and a

y concepts. T

also be con

tests during

t Plan (SDP)

ogistics and

. This define

ls during the

cs footprint (

U) definition

; and suppor

rams technic

ng, launch, a

major cost d

t this point sh

ation risks ag

results in the

ifications ar

ems Acquisi

encompasse

on & Test, an

he launch ve

n, test and la

n the program

s designed an

abilities are a

cus on manuf

ehicle produc

bilities suppo

pt of Operat

t rates, launc

e cycle, and l

ehicle life cy

m life cycle

se F). In con

e concepts ar

mine processi

ations over t

y aspect of P

ecessary to a

affordability.

This is partic

ducted on re

early develo

).

support con

es the key dr

e Production

(on-site main

n; personnel

rtability risks

cal metrics. I

and flight fai

drivers in veh

hould consid

gainst the lau

e System Req

re base lined

ition (Phase

es Final Des

nd Launch O

ehicle, verific

aunch operati

m, more than

nd develope

also defined

facturing risk

ction and op

orted by the v

tions Docum

ch site locatio

launch vehic

ycle is the ti

is from the

njunction wit

re defined wh

ing and laun

the program

Pre-Phase A

achieve the l

Technolog

cularly impo

elated vehicl

opment activ

cepts are cap

riving philos

and Operati

ntenance, de

skills, traini

s. Productio

In addition,

ilures. A Ro

hicle capabil

der not only

unch vehicle

quirements R

.

es C, D)

ign and Fabr

Operations (P

cation and v

ions of the f

n one test fli

ed during this

and put in p

k reduction.

erations cos

vehicle desig

ment and defi

on and envir

cle program

ime from sta

start of conc

th the vehicl

hich include

nch time line

life cycle.

and Phase A

launch vehic

gy demonstra

ortant in early

le such earlie

vities should

ptured in the

sophies to ac

ions phase (P

epot mainten

ing, and cert

on and Opera

a Failure Ma

ough Order o

lities and sup

developmen

e operational

Review (SRR

rication (Pha

Phase D). Th

validation of

first flight ve

ight may be

s phase. Va

place. Manu

The design

ts are establ

gn. The laun

ines the miss

ronment, sys

life cycle. F

art of manufa

cept definitio

le concept, th

es launch rel

es and mainte

A. This phas

cle concepts

ations includ

y launch veh

er variants in

d be included

e Integrated

ccomplish th

Phase E). T

nance, sparin

tification; su

ation metrics

anagement P

of Magnitude

pport plans.

nt risks but a

l uses and m

RR) where the

ase C) along

his phase inc

the design.

ehicle are co

involved in

arious produc

ufacturing pla

n incorporate

ished in term

nch vehicle

sions and

stem

For an

acture throug

on through

he launch

iability, exp

enance acces

se involves t

for capabilit

de demonstra

hicle test flig

n the launch

d as part of t

Logistics

he affordabil

The ILSP

ng policy); li

upply chain

s should be

Plan address

e (ROM) TO

also the

missions. Th

e launch veh

g with Vehic

cludes the fi

In addition,

nducted in th

this phase.

ction and

ans are

es producibil

ms of

gh

ected

ss

the

ties,

ation

ghts.

the

lity

ine

ses

OC is

e

hicle

cle

inal

,

his

lity

through m

monitorin

flight rec

Verificat

capabiliti

Operation

Failure M

(PRA), re

provide k

lines.

The ILSP

requirem

the desig

(mainten

lines. De

consideri

replacem

maintena

provided

Points (K

Analysis

sparing n

The DoD

Maintena

launch ve

maintena

failure co

the failur

apply we

DoD mod

through t

TOC esti

requirem

operation

purposefu

4.3. N

Productio

assembly

launch ve

manufacturin

ng measurem

construction

tion and vali

ies. Flight te

ns control te

Modes and E

eliability allo

key informat

P establishes

ments, and da

gn include lau

nance down t

esign assessm

ing ability to

ments over th

ance, roll bac

d to support v

KDP), cost au

(LORA) are

needs.

D model addr

ance. The ap

ehicle maint

ance is defin

ondition. Sin

res are not ex

ell. For re-us

del. These c

the life of th

imates are re

ments to be m

ns, and post

fully and exp

NASA Prod

on and Oper

y, integration

ehicle this pe

ng requirem

ments, engin

data), vehic

dation appro

est plans inco

eams and cen

Effects Analy

ocations are

tion for main

s the comple

ata capture an

unch availab

time). These

ments are co

o accommod

he program li

ck maintenan

various prog

udits, etc. A

e conducted

ressed both R

pplicability o

tenance is re

ed, most ma

nce the life c

xpected due

seable launc

concepts can

e vehicle (w

efined from t

met by manuf

flight analys

plicitly mana

duction and

rations Activ

n, test, and la

eriod is gene

ents. Design

neering flight

le diagnostic

oaches includ

orporate logi

nters, and op

ysis (FMEA)

all conducte

ntenance pla

te logistics f

nd access. K

bility, launch

e characteris

onducted in c

date technolo

ife cycle. M

nce, and dep

gram reviews

Maintenanc

to determin

Reliability C

of these conc

active to fail

aintenance ac

cycle of the v

to operation

ch vehicles, h

n be applied

which may en

the ROM lev

facturing, tra

sis. Affordab

aged during t

Operations

vities (Phase

aunch operat

erally decade

n of operatio

t information

cs, and fligh

de operation

istics and su

perational co

), Fault Tree

ed during thi

anning, crew

footprint and

Key logistics

h and missio

stics drive th

conjunction

ogy refresh, o

Maintenance

pot maintena

s including m

ce Task Anal

e detailed m

Centered Ma

cepts depend

lure conditio

ctions are co

vehicle is pr

nal cycles or

however, RC

after each fl

ncompass the

vel to specifi

ansportation

bility throug

the design an

s (Phase E)

E) for a laun

tion for the o

es in length

onal flight in

n (post fligh

ht prognostic

ns and logisti

upportability

ommunicatio

es, Probabilis

is phase. Th

w abort condi

d approach, p

and support

on reliability

he processing

with each m

obsolescenc

concepts are

ance. Logist

major design

lysis (MTA)

maintenance p

aintenance an

ds on the veh

ons. While s

orrective bas

redominantly

use. Thus,

CM and CBM

light and afte

e life of the

fic Productio

, assembly, t

ghout the veh

nd developm

nch vehicle

operational m

which must

nformation, t

ht analysis an

c data are con

ics and supp

y demonstrati

ons are devel

stic Risk As

hese critical

itions, and co

personnel an

t characterist

, maintainab

g and launch

major design

e upgrades,

e defined inc

tics and supp

n reviews, K

) and Level o

procedures,

nd Condition

hicle concep

some preven

ed on the oc

y during the

neither RCM

M apply as d

er a set numb

program).

on and Opera

test, launch,

hicle life cyc

ment phase.

involves the

missions sup

be consider

temporary

nd catastroph

nducted.

portability

ion objective

loped.

sessments

assessments

ontingency t

nd certificati

tics addresse

bility

h countdown

review

SCM

cluding on p

port data are

ey Decision

of Report

LRUs, and

n Based

pt. Expendab

ntative

ccurrence of

assembly ph

M nor CBM

described in

ber of flight

ations cost

flight

cle must

e manufactur

pported. For

red in the

hic

es.

s

time

ion

ed by

n time

pad

able

a

hase,

the

s

re,

r a

supportab

A, B, C).

The key

concepts

For a lau

and miss

productio

place wh

are availa

more eco

FRP is ac

productio

periods m

stages or

The FRP

productio

up costs t

surge cap

These co

be expan

able to af

In additio

are gener

skills to s

launch si

A key asp

Assessm

and custo

of logisti

the block

4.4. N

Program

of remain

lessons le

launch ve

orderly s

years bef

5. Summ

bility assessm

.

concepts for

are categori

unch vehicle,

ions, can be

on capacity i

hile the toolin

able/ready to

onomically s

chieved whe

on capacity.

may be accom

r vehicles, m

P capacity mu

on base, then

to the launch

pacity are ge

oncepts affec

ndable to cop

ffordably sup

on to produc

rally more ef

support laun

ite systems.

pect to mana

ents. These

omers. Majo

ics, supporta

k upgrade is

NASA Deco

Close out (P

ning assets, t

earned and k

ehicle develo

hutdown of

fore the deco

mary

ments condu

r launch vehi

ized as Low

, production

considered

is not in plac

ng and poten

o support hig

upported wi

en the full se

This capaci

mmodated th

multiple vehic

ust also cons

n long period

h vehicle pro

enerally bette

ct logistics pl

pe with the in

pport surge c

ction, operati

fficiently han

nch operation

aging P&O p

assessment

or planned b

ability, and o

brought into

ommissionin

Phase F) inv

transition of

key technica

opments. Th

the program

ommissionin

ucted early in

icle applicat

Rate Initial

of early blo

LRIP. Basi

ce. Expansio

ntial facility

gher product

ith LRIP.

et of mission

ity must con

hrough a var

cle processin

sider low flo

ds of over pr

oviders and c

er than peak

lanning dras

ncrease from

capacities on

ions must be

ndled as a co

ns are the sam

phase costs i

cycles shou

lock upgrad

operations ef

o operational

ng (Phase F)

volves the ord

f manufactur

l data for his

hese plans m

m. This is a l

ng date in ord

n the vehicle

tion right siz

Production

cks, which m

ic production

on to include

costs are de

tion rates. E

s and custom

nsider the ave

riety of techn

ng lines at th

ow rates. If t

roduction co

customers. A

rate sizing.

stically. The

m LRIP to FR

nce FRP is r

e planned eff

onsolidated

me as flight

is to conduct

ld be set bas

des should be

fficiency at th

l use.

)

derly shutdo

ring facilities

storical purp

must be put in

long lead act

der to proper

e definition a

zing of the pr

(LRIP) and

may involve

n capabilitie

e the full rat

ferred until t

Early demons

mer needs ca

erage and pe

niques inclu

he launch site

the peak rate

ould unintent

Average pro

e logistics an

RP. Logistic

realized.

ficiently. La

team rather

operations w

t regular pro

sed on fundin

e associated

the initial of

own of the pr

s, and the ca

poses and po

n place with

tivity that ne

rly dispositio

and design p

roduction ba

Full Rate Pr

a subset of

es are exerci

te production

the launch v

stration miss

an be accomm

eak flows. H

uding tempor

e, and multip

e is used for

tionally be re

oduction rate

nd support ca

cs and suppo

aunch and fl

than separat

with the exce

ogram Opera

ng cycles fro

with a progr

block devel

rogram inclu

apture and re

otential appli

h sufficient ti

eeds to be pl

on and trans

phases (Phas

ase. These

roduction (F

customer us

sed, but full

n must be in

vehicle custo

sions may be

modated by

High launch

rary storage

ple shift wor

sizing the

ealized drivi

es with some

apabilities m

ort must also

ight operatio

te teams. Th

eption of the

ational

om stakehol

ram assessm

opments and

uding dispos

etention of

ication on fu

ime to affect

anned at lea

sfer assets.

ses

RP).

ses

omers

e

the

rate

of

rk.

ing

e

must

o be

ons

he

e

ders

ment

d as

sition

uture

t and

ast 5

System Operational Effectiveness provides a strong framework from which to measure and

manage the effectiveness of a launch vehicle performance, availability, and process efficiency.

This framework maps well to the NASA launch vehicle development and operations concepts.

SOE provides the framework in which technical performance metrics can be defined, integrated,

and related to provide a more complete understanding of the vehicle capabilities and support

systems. In order to achieve affordable operational effectiveness, the launch vehicle must be

designed for support and the support systems must support the design. This relationship is

essential as no processes can compensate for a vehicle not designed for support. As the launch

vehicle moves from definition through design, the SOE measures and focus change with the

design maturity. The focus shifts from design for support as these capabilities are designed in to

the vehicle to support definition for the design. This yields a launch vehicle with matching

support capabilities ready for mission support beginning with the first launch. As the program

moves to the P&O phase, the production base must be right sized to the anticipated mission flow

rate. The concepts of LRIP and FRP provide a basis from which to transition from low early

mission launch rates to higher mission rates as the program matures and the customer base

expands. The production base in this case must be able to accommodate surge capacities to keep

from over sizing the production base. Logistics and support capabilities must be scalable with

the production capacities as the program moves from LRIP to FRP.

References

Beck, Jerry; Verma, Dinesh; Parry, Tom; “Designing and Assessing Supportability in DoD

Weapons Systems: A Guide to Increased Reliability with Reduced Logistics Footprint”, Oct

2003.

NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, NASA Program

Requirement 7120.5E.

Griffin, Michael, “How Do We Fix System Engineering?”, 61

st

Annual International Congress,

Prague, Czech Republic, 27 Sept – 1 Oct 2010.

B

IOGRAPHY

Michael D. Watson is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space

Launch System (SLS) Lead Discipline Engineer for Operations Engineering. He started his

career with NASA developing International Space Station (ISS) Payload Training Complex and

the ISS Payload Data Services System (PDSS). He also worked to develop remote operations

support capabilities for the Spacelab Program installing Remote Operations Centers and services

in the United States, Europe, and Japan. He subsequently served as Chief of the Optics Branch

responsible for the fabrication of large x-ray telescope mirrors, diffractive optics, telescope

systems. He served as Chief of the Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) and Sensors

Branch and led a NASA team defining Vehicle Management System capabilities for human

missions to Mars. His branch work included the definition of ISHM capabilities for the Ares

family of launch vehicles. He graduated with a BSEE from the University of Kentucky in 1987

and obtained his MSE in Electrical and Computer Engineering (1996) and Ph.D. in Electrical

and Computer Engineering (2005) from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Gary W. Kelley is an Aerospace Engineer for the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA). Mr. Kelley is a prior service member that managed the Tactical

Automated Mission Planning System (TAMPS) and Joint Services Imagery Processing System

(JSIPS) for a battle group on multiple deployments. Mr. Kelley began his NASA career as a

Space Shuttle Systems Instructor, training flight crew and flight controller personnel at the

Johnson Space Center (JSC). He has real-time operations experience from supporting work for

the EGIL and Electrical Power System (EPS) consoles, in the Mission Control Center (MCC), on

eight Space Transportation System (STS) missions. Mr. Kelley is responsible for the creation of

the JSC Apollo Lessons Learned videos regarding the EPS which were used in support of Orion

program designs and decision making. Mr. Kelley supported the Orion EPS design effort until

arrival at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in October 2010. Since arriving at the

MSFC, he has supported multiple design and operations studies, in support of the Space Launch

System (SLS) program. Mr. Kelley earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace