1. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Working Through System Models Space Systems Challenge Team INCOSE MBSE Initiative Presented by Bjorn Cole (for Chris Delp) Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California, U.S.A. Bjorn.Cole@jpl.nasa.gov

2. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Space Systems Challenge Team Commercial and Government participants Core team: –Chris Delp (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) –Manas Bajaj (InterCAX) –Russell Peak (InterCAX, Georgia Tech) –Dave Kaslow (Analytical Graphics, Inc.)

3. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Team Objectives – Discover: Can we fully represent Space Systems with systems models? Can we generate vital systems engineering products (reports, documents, analyses and studies) from models? Can a unified basis for modeling be found to allow seamless collaboration between many disciplines of engineers? If not, what is in our way?

4. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Success in past years! FireSat – International and Academic Collaboration w/ publically available concept 5 Pilot on publically available Outer Planets Flagship Mission concept with integrated Parametrics execution 3

5. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Lots of Ground to Cover Model-Based Mission Operations Modeling and Generating Documents STK XML Schema Integrating STK and SysML

6. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Model-Based Mission Operations 1 Goal is to replace manuals and static descriptions of spacecraft with models as the gold source of information Models will be called upon to give a complete description of spacecraft –Expected behaviors –Physical configuration –Command dictionaries –Expected resource availability of spacecraft in near term –Operational constraints –Expected quality and volume of data products –Expected responses to operator commands Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

7. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Model for Controller A view of the Mission Operations System (MOS) is as a control system for a spacecraft A model-based MOS is a parallel to control algorithms that incorporate a plant model to calibrate sensor inputs Model must provide ability to reconcile predicted and observed states to improve efficiency and operator performance Does SysML support this? Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

8. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Model with Simulation for Development Simulating spacecraft operation early in development is desired to improve design of operations system and flight system Fidelity of spacecraft model should be sufficient to prototype an MOS, which should guide design of spacecraft to greater operability Operational scenarios are key to understanding resource requirements for spacecraft to support observations with a given instrument set Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

9. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA More work ahead on (control system) states Something to chew on for more of the workshop One of the standing critiques of SysML from members of this group is the treatment of time among behavior and parametrics constructs Strengthening execution semantics for behavior (e.g., fUML and Modelica integration) is improving the ability to work with stateful variables and time A valid question – when do we attempt to work with these variables in the system model and when do we call upon other tools in the modeling / simulation kit? How about associating state trajectories back to the system model? Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

10. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Document Generation and Models 2 Goes beyond tool support for export –Can the model be made rich enough to provide for its own description? –Does entering the needed information make the process more intensive than just writing the original document? –Does the result “read” at all? Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

11. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Thinking Beyond Document Generators Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

12. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA We write to make a case Defend a design decision or approach Raise a concern Describe the soundness, efficiency, or optimality of an overall design Model-based engineering is a way to develop evidence; you cannot convince through dumping evidence in a pile on the table (believe me – I’ve tried) (to paraphrase a colleague) Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

13. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Rendering a spacecraft design readable Can’t escape writing – need a narrative that samples the model and generated results Success came from embedding a document model beside the system model Different documents slice through models in different ways already: –Architecture documents (Mission Ops) –Browseable web views of model structure –Reports on model properties –Echo of captured information (stakeholders and concerns) The MBSE benefit from embedding document description in model is that we have much greater assurances that the different views are all consistent Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

14. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Results of MOS Revitalization Experience with Document Generation Made the design clearer to reviewers Saved time on iteration as model was revised in preparation for reviews Board was able to sync to team’s semantics and use them to provide critiques Saved a great deal of effort hunting down trivial inconsistencies and guided work toward meaningful issues Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

15. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Answering “When do I stop?” Something else discovered while building document models –Model is finished when there is enough information to finish the story –Generated document can also highlight where the story is not strong enough –General structure of document may be pre- determined, but model and document naturally co- evolve if structure is laid out up front –Wipes out tyranny of the blank page Copyright 2011 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

16. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA SysML with STK 6,7 Next segment of work is a collaboration between AGI and InterCAX to experiment with connecting SysML to an orbital analysis tool This is the combination of model-based specification and high-fidelity analysis

17. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Satellite Toolkit in 60 seconds General-purpose modeling and analysis Integrated visualization Many modules for air, sea, and space applications –Coverage analysis –Communications analysis –Orbital propagation –Mission design

18. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Current STK Taxonomy Multiple objects to be observed: –Area Target –Line Target –Point Target Assets: –Aircraft –Spacecraft –Land Vehicles –Ships –Missiles –Facilities –Sensors (on many of the above) Analysis Objects –Chains for relays of communciations Others in different modules (e.g., Maneuvers in Astrogator)

19. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA [Geospatial] Information Wants to Be Free Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has worked for many years to increase the power of collected geospatial information by making it interoperable (and thus easy to combine) Originally for archived information, but work on standards in moving toward acquiring information as well Sensor Web Enablement WG is defining standards for space-based observations, as well as input / output standards for available alerts and planning

20. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Flow of Sensor Planning Service Messages User GetCapabilities: Request GetStatus: Request DescribeTasking: Request - Sensor ID GetFeasibility: Request - Sensor ID - Input Parameters DescribeResultAccess: Request Submit: Request - Sensor ID - Input Parameters Data Provider Sensor Planning Service GetCapabilities: Response - Organization providing service - Operations provided - Sensor IDs available for tasking - Description of sensors DescribeTasking: Response - Submit Request Input Parameters (&GetFeasibility) GetFeasibility: Response Submit: Response DescribeResultAccess: Response GetStatus: Response Data exchange by way of XML documents In accord with Sensor Planning Service Application Specification (OGC 07-014r3) Which contains: Description of Operations Parameters Definitions, Implementations, and Encodings UML Class Diagrams XML Notations XML Schema (Normative Ref) Example XML (Informative Ref)

21. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Where’s the systems modeling? The core of the planning service is the feasibility of the request Satellite Toolkit can use the sensor model, orbital mechanics, and geometry of observation to determine feasibility of the request Downlink opportunities and throughput can also be simulated AGI curates a standard objects catalog (SOC) for its customers for convenience – an appropriate systems model for the SOC is required to interface with the Sensor Planning Service

22. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Population of and Access to Standard Object Catalog Satellite Took Kit Plug-In Standard Object Catalog STK Objects PoC SPS Object Build Review, Feedback, Reconcile Populate XML Document Submit for Approval User Data Team Manually Populate XML Doc Spacecraft XML Template Spacecraft Schema Data Team Generate XML Document Spacecraft DB Record to XML Doc Translator Spacecraft Staging DB Manually Populate Staging Database Data Team SOC Web Site XML Docs Search Results Comments Internet Browser User

23. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Current Prototyping Leverages the FireSat model from earlier Challenge Group work FireSat descriptions notional operations as well as spacecraft characteristics – example figures of merit are taken from the model for evaluation in the demonstration Interface is being developed to use SysML satellite descriptions as data source for AGI Components for computation of observation scenarios

24. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Prototype Data Exchange Between FireSat SysML Model and AGI Components Data Exchange Specified by Schema Data exchanges can be XML documents or APIs Accessibility Chain Request Scenario Elements Feature Coverage Response Coverage by Area and by Percent Min, Max & Avg Response Time Min, Max & Avg Revisit Time Coverage by Time Interval Accessibility Chain Response Accessibility Interval Start & Stop Times Scenario Elements Initialization Spacecrafts: Names & Orbits Imaging Payloads: Names & Patterns Features of Interest: Names, Boundaries, & Viewing Constraints Geo Relay Satellites: Names & Locations Ground Stations: Names & Locations Scenario Start & Stop Times Feature Coverage Request Feature of Interest Name Spacecraft & Payload Names Figure of Merit Request SysML Model Interface Prototype Setup System Elements Determine Accessibility Determine Feature Coverage Interface Prototype to AGI Components Cache Interface Components Interface AGI Components Scenario Elements Cache Data Exchange Scenario Elements Accessibility Request / Response Feature Coverage Request/Response

25. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA It has been a busy year Analytical capabilities rapidly increasing More integration with other modeling languages Much more experience with documentation and reporting from models Feasibility is shown – now on to maturation and productivity

26. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Come to the Breakout Sessions! Monday morning – Model Scaling Issues joint session Space Systems + Telescope Monday afternoon – SysML / STK joint session Space Systems, Telescope, Model and Simulation Interoperability At the Wiki! http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/doku.php?id=m bse:incose_mbse_workshop

27. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA Acknowledgements JPL Integrated Model-Centric Engineering initiative team JPL Operations Revitalization Team FireSat Challenge Team Contributors Analytical Graphics, Inc. InterCAX

28. International Workshop 28 Jan – 2 Feb 2011 Phoenix, AZ, USA References 1.Delp, C., Bindschadler, D., Wolleager, R., Carrion, C., et al., “MOS 2.0 - Modeling The Next Revolutionary Mission Operations System,” 2011 IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference Proceedings, March 5-12, 2011. 2.Jackson, M., Delp, C., Bindschadler D., Sarrel, M., Wollaeger, R., and Lam, D., “Dynamic Gate Product and Artifact Generation from System Models,” 2011 IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference Proceedings, March 5-12, 2011. 3.Cole, B., Delp, C., and Donahue, K., "Piloting Model Based Engineering Techniques for Spacecraft Concepts," INCOSE International Symposium 2010, Chicago, IL, USA, June, 2010. 4.Jenkins, S., “A Modeling Approach to Document Production,” INCOSE INSIGHT, [12] 4, p. 44-6. December 2009. 5.Delp, C., “FireSAT: Model vs Documents Alone,” Presentation at INCOSE International Workshop 2010. 6.Kaslow, D., “COTS Implementation of a Sensor Planning Service GetFeasibility Operation - Interim Status #2”, 2011 IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference Proceedings, March 5-12, 2011. 7.Bajaj, M., “SLIM - A Collaborative, Model-Based Systems Engineering Workspace for Next- Generation Complex System”, 2011 IEEE Aerospace Applications Conference Proceedings, March 5-12, 2011.