MIT Internal Kickoff Space Architecture Project

1. MIT Internal KickoffSpace Architecture Project Nov. 7, 2003

2. Team Members present • PI: Prof. Ed Crawley • Co-I: Prof. Jeff Hoffman, Prof. Oli de Weck • excused: Prof. Dava Newman • Students: • PhD: Ryan Boas, Christine Taylor • SM: Kristen Bethke, Matt Silver • Guest: Tom Speller (PhD candidate ESD)

3. Statement of Work • We discussed the SOW for ca. 40 min • Change in NASA strategy towards “stepping stones and flexible building blocks” • Section on Gary Martin’s job as the NASA Space Architect, challenges • 1 Figure overview of project • 9 steps in research methodology, start with establishing a baseline • Everyone should read the SOW again so that we have a common basis and understanding!

4. Greatest Impact on NASA • How can we have the greatest impact? • Make Gary Martin succeed in his job • Our work should find their way into his deliverables • Support any major NASA initiatives over the next year • Stay tuned for NASA announcements • Critical vote in Spring 2004 (March/April) on OSP funding – will Congress force the issue of extensibility? • Support submission of next annual budget cycle • Next FY05 (starts October 2004) • Impact on FY06?

5. What needs to change at NASA? • Many many studies and plans on space exploration exist • Done at NASA centers: JSC, LaRC, … • Understand why studies are “shelved”? • Some are “employment” programs, keep skills sharp, people busy • Most space programs are initiated based on political will • Examples: Mercury, Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz (1975) • What is the first step in the “stepping stones and flexible building blocks” approach ? How do we get the ball roling? • Need a new paradigm of approach to system architecting of missions for Space Exploration • Not a single mission focus • A method rather than a particular plan or mission study • A method into which the mission studies can be more effectively integrated, “intellectual network” • Each study should come up with the same types of “outputs” – embedded in a higher level vision • A study is an instantiation of a “higher level template” (in OPM language)

6. Our Approach – how we will proceed • 16.89 – Space Systems Engineering (Spring 2004) • Project team faculty plays role of “Space Architect” • We create the higher level template • Break the class into two or more teams • OSP Level 1 requirements team • Second team thinks about DRM’s and extensibility • At some point force teams to interact and resolve technical issues raised by additional extensibility requirements • Key ideas • Replicate tension between OSP (Earth LEO short term 6 years) and long term extensibility missions ( Moon, Mars) • Use class as a testbed for “higher level template” – to be created • Announce and “recruit” students for this class early • Within AA Dept. • Within ESD (faculty lunch?)

7. “Higher Level Template” • How do we get to a higher level template? • Idea (Jeff)  look at a number of DRMs • What are common elements among them? • Reverse engineering from the paper designs • E.g. on orbit assembly, robotic manipulators… • What functions are necessary? • Build up “vocabulary” of common functions • Idea (Ed)  extract common “template” • How to describe a DRM • Technology assumptions, mission assumptions, cost models • Presentation of deliverables • Tradeoffs, sensitivities • Capture “Best practices” in DRM

8. Evaluate DRM’s using Template • How is the template to be used – to what level of details? • Provide a model to follow? • Principles of architecting/design contained? • Impose “high level” generic metrics for a GINA-like approach, but adapted to Space Transportation • Rate, Integrity, Isolation, Availability, Capacity • What are the equivalents for a “matter” transportation system in space?

9. Refined Vision for 16.89 • 20 Students Mission Specific Template - Parallel studies Template - Used for coordinated studies

10. December 2003 • Working Meeting w/ Gary JC • Come up to MIT to draft template • Look at some DRM’s beforehand • Establish metrics • Rapid prototyping of template during 16.89 spring (“spiral” approach)

11. SOW – First stabs – let’s get going • Schedule working meeting w/Gary/JC – bring McDougal • Within the next 3-5 weeks • NASA  MIT: Ongoing studies – expected results • MIT NASA: to tell our plans • MIT,NASA together, craft “template” • Transportation “master plan” • Create “options space” • Sub-templates (e.g. chart of all different transportation routes between Earth and Mars). Establish a fundamental set. • Metrics – analog of GINA metrics for space matter transport • Organize “Gray Beards” Advisory Board • Combination of young graduate students/faculty with 60/70 year old experienced individuals could be powerful • Internal: Leopold, Battin, Kerrebrock, Seamans, Chan, Gavin • External: “Awesome” architect (non-space), Liebeck, Imrich, external space architects: A. Cohen, Dale Myers (ex. Dept Admin NASA – Apollo), D. Kohrs (Kistler), M. Griffen, private enterprise, J. Schmitt

12. SOW start • 1.i Inventory of NASA DRMs (Jeff, Kristen) • 1.ii DV requirements (Christine/Oli) • How do people in the DRMs report the sensitivity of DV(energetics) to travel/mission time? • Do “3-points define a curve” – effect of changing transfer times -10%, -20%  what’s the effect on DV? • 1.iiiArchitectural representations (OPM) of past and present ST infrastructure (Ryan/Ed) • What exists? • 1.iv Manufacturing and refurbishment cost analysis of Space Shuttle (Matt/Jeff/Oli) • Try to get data from NASA • Replicate results from Wertz paper 1:1 • Break monolithic model down by allowing a mix of reusable and extensible subsystems

13. SOW start(2) • MIST  extend to Bayesian belief network (Ben) • w/Ben Koo and Matt – do both traditional utility based method and new Bayesian work • Scenario Development (Ed/Christine) • Populate scenario development – operational scenarios, find fundamental set • OSP Level 1 requirements (Ed/Jeff/Oli) • Level 2 available on web? • Continue weekly meetings on Wednesdays