Developing Metrics in Systems Integration
(
ISS Program COTS Integration Model)
Kathryn Lueders
COTS Integration Manager
International Space Station Program
August 22, 2007
System Integration Challenges
• In large systems, multiple managers manage key system components.
– Products for parts feed in as inputs to others.
– Parts of the system may have conflicting priorities.
• One challenge we have is matching our goals and metrics to complement our corresponding partners’ goals and metrics.
• The second challenge is to ensure that our goals and metrics are appropriate for the global organizational goals while supporting our needs.
• The following is a case study of how two programs within NASA try to develop and measure performance while meeting the encompassing organizational goals.
Overarching Goal
• To provide logistics services for the International Space Station (ISS).
– Vision for Space Exploration to retire Space Shuttle by 2010 results in using remaining flights to complete ISS assembly.
– Our International Partners are providing transportation with the ATV and HTV but there is still a need for further transportation capabilities.
– Commercial transportation service is the preferred approach if proven reliable and cost effective.
• Current transportation provider pool is limited.
– NASA developed the COTS Program as a method of “jump starting” market capability. – The ISS needs provide a tangible market for them.
Orbital Vehicle Processing
And Certification
Physical Cargo Integration
Packing and Orbiting Vehicle Integration
Infrastructure
ISS Verification and Manifest Interface
ISS On Orbit Mission Control Center Interface ISS – COTS Packing and
Loads Analysis Orbiting Vehicle Recovery Cargo Unpacking and Return Proximity Operations Launch Management Post Launch
ISS Transportation Concept
Keep Out Sphere
Launch Vehicle Orbital Vehicle Mission Design, Integration & Engineering Vehicle Production Launch Site Operations
Identify Key Outcomes
• The Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO) was established to support the development of potential providers by providing funding, expertise, and advocacy.
– Key Outcomes for C3PO are:
• Enabling markets for future providers.
• Developing measurable milestones for monitoring and tracking provider progress. • Fostering support for emerging providers.
• The International Space Station Program (ISSP) is responsible for safely managing and flying the International Space Station.
– Key Outcomes for the ISS Program are:
• Having the COTS vehicle safely approach and berth to the ISS vehicle. • Ensure that they are developing an integration template that matches the
Partner’s design progress while allowing the Program enough time to perform their integration task.
2006 2007 2008 2009 D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D N 11/15 SRR01/22PDR 08/15 CDR 02/15 TRR 09/15Demo 1 Mission 03/29 SRR 12/17 PDR 06/18CDR 12/15TRR 06/15Demo 2 Mission 10/15 SRR 04/15PDR 01/15CDR 06/15TRR 09/15Demo 3 Mission 12/07 SRR102/06SRR #2 08/01PDR 11/15 Demo 1 Mission 01/15 Demo 2 Mission 05/15 Demo 3 Mission - SpX Project Milestones - Demo 1 - Demo 2 - Demo 3 - RpK Project Milestones - Demo 1 - Demo 2 - Demo 3
POC: COTS Development Milestones
• The COTS Demo schedules were appropriate for incremental vehicle development and test milestones.
• They allowed incremental growth and check out of the new vehicle.
• First demo flights tested the rocket; later flights checked out prox ops and berthing to the ISS.
• The development milestones were very aggressive.
• The development schedule was driven by the ISS Resupply needs beginning in 2010.
• The schedules only reflected the COTS developing providers schedules but didn’t take into account ISS Program and COTS integrated activities.
• The C3PO and the COTS Partners’ milestones matched their objective of provider development.
Determine Appropriate Milestones
•
The ISS had to develop their schedules that met the ISS Program’s integration
and resource needs.
– We needed to identify long lead activities and what work needed to be done by the COTS Partners to meet that.
• Safety Review Panel assessment – drives comm data, design approval. • Software integration
• Requirements and verification planning • Required integrated test requirements
– But yet, we had to be aware of the schedule that the COTS Partners were committing to and only deviating from it in critical areas.
– We had to look at the rest of our current activities and how these new tasks fit in our schedule.
– We had to manage our resources to match to our integration dates.
• The ISS Program also has to understand how the elements and metrics tracked by their sister program fed into these key integration milestones
– We needed to synergize the efforts of both programs.
Milestone Development
•
In particular areas the ISS drove the schedule.
– An example of this is the scheduling of the Space X Phase 1 and Phase 2 Safety Review Panel dates.
• Under the COTS Demo schedules, these would have occurred in May 2008 and November 2009.
• For Space X, the ISS requested that they occur in summer 2007 and spring 2008. • That provided the groundwork that they needed to begin critical ISS integration
work (ops concepts, communication requirements, software concepts).
– Other areas we drove the schedule were tied to our long lead integration templates. • Software development, integration and testing, and timing of uploads are a long
lead process.
• Critical integrated analysis and integration areas (overall loads, environments, thermal, and robotics analysis).
• Crew training and operations planning. • PROX operations and planning activities.
2006 2007 2008 2009 D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D N 11/15 SRR01/22PDR 08/15CDR 02/15TRR 09/15Demo 1 Mission 03/29 SRR 12/17PDR 06/18CDR 12/15TRR 06/15 Demo 2 Mission 10/15 SRR 04/15PDR 01/15CDR 06/15TRR 09/15Demo 3 Mission 07/09
Phase I Safety Review Panel 04/15Phase II Safety Review Panel 04/15Phase III Safety Review Panel
12/07 SRR102/06SRR #2 07/2508/01PDR 11/15Demo 1 Mission 01/15 Demo 2 Mission 03/15 Demo 3 Mission 10/15 Phase I 07/15Phase II 07/31 SSP50508 B/L IRD 09/30
SSP50508 Add Comm Box Rqts
10/30
SSP50508 Rev A IRD
08/14
SSP50809 SpX HW Specific ICDs 1st Draft
10/30
SSP50809 SpX HW Specific ICDs B/L
08/31
SSP50815 RPK HW Specific ICDs 1st Draft
11/15
SSP50815 RPK HW Specific ICDs B/L
05/21
Val1 Running @ SpaceX
05/28
Obtain Access to MBF 08/31Provide Architecture & General Description of SpaceX FDIR
08/31
Confirm w/NASA C&W/Safety Fulfill Caution & Warning Rqts
09/30
41178-41 SpX SW (MDM to ISS) ICD B/L
10/15
1st Formal IPCL Del
07/15
1st level Testing @ JSC (Link Layer/Basic Comm)
10/15PROX Testing w/JAXA 01/15
2nd Level Testing @ JSC (Function/Cmmd & Warnings)
06/01 08/31
Stage TDS & DVO Development 07/15RpK Demo 2 MAPS Baselined (L-6mos)
07/16 09/14
Stage TDS & DVO Approval 12/11RpK Demo 2 Stage Verification Complete (L-5wks)
08/01 09/21
SpX & RpK Stage VE-23 Builds 09/15RpK Demo 3 MAPS Baselined (L-6mos)
09/2109/27
SpX & RpK Stage VE-23 Delivery 02/08RpK Demo 3 Stage Verification Complete (L-5wks)
03/15
SpX Demo 3 MAPS Baselined (L-6mos)
08/11
SpX Demo 3 Stage Verification Complete (L-5wks)
3 COTS Milestones - Demo 1 - Demo 2 - Demo 3 POC:
Requirements Development
Software Development
Stage Verification
ISS Program Milestone Development
Keep Goals and Milestones Balanced
• Original ISS Program templates were tied to their development and sustaining templates and resources.
– Typical timeline for software releases was two years.
– Typical timeline for stage verifications and integrated analysis was over two years.
– These templates allowed the teams to work the flights and perform work within their existing manpower.
• If ISS kept to their usual templates for development and integration they would never meet the overall goals of NASA (and ultimately our goals for having multiple resupply providers).
– We had to adjust their timelines and change their processes to accommodate the new
vehicles.
– We had to push for critical data deliverables where they needed them to perform key long
lead tasks.
– We had to monitor the progress of the key sub elements of the other programs tasks.
• We had to balance the overall commercial model for development with our programmatic requirements.
Summary
•
Understand how your piece fits in the overall system.
– Have a clear vision of the overall goal.
– Understand how your goals fit in with other organization’s goals.
•
Ensure development, tracking, and measurement of milestones is
appropriate for your specific role.
• May require a re-negotiation of dependent organization’s milestones. • Critical to understand priority of the relating milestones.
