2. Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)
September 2013
Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)
Setting the Environment for Industry-Consensus Standards
Bernie Collins
ODNI/AT&F

3. SUMO Agenda Introduction Outreach and Support: Government
Outreach and Support: Industry
Cost Savings and Other Benefits
Transition Plan

4. Space Universal MOdular Architecture (SUMO)
Classification
Space Universal MOdular Architecture (SUMO)
Goal: Reduce the cost of satellites and help the US industry be more responsive in a growing international space market What: Interoperability of satellite components through universalized environments and standardized data and electrical interfaces How: Leverage existing & evolving standards to help US industry coalesce around industry consensus standards (which could become international)
ODNI
US Space Industrial Base
More Competitive Internationally
Larger Addressable Market
Less Time to Market/Orbit
Increased Innovation
US Government Buyer
Reduced Acquisition Costs
Enhanced Capabilities
NRO
Collaboration
SUMO Certified Components
Space Universal
MOdular architecture
SUMO
Plug & Play
AFRL
Standards
Process
SMC
Transition
Plan
NASA
Industry
Classification

5. Modular Bus with Open Interfaces
Component Interfaces Defined by the Application
Component Interfaces Defined by Industry Consensus
Supplier A
Supplier A
Prime X
Prime X OR OR
Supplier B
Prime Y
Supplier B OR
Prime Y OR
Supplier C
Prime Z
Supplier C OR
Prime Z OR
Catalog, Common, or Custom Bus
Modular Bus with Open Interfaces

6. Software Layering Diagram
SUMO defines the interfaces through industry
consensus

7. Tenets for Success Leverage Existing Standards and Think Global
Space Industry Consensus
Avoid Commoditization – Protect Intellectual Property
Natural Break-In Points for Gradual Introduction
Avoid disrupting current programs

8. SUMO Evolutionary Path
AFRL:
NGSIS
ORS:
MSV
Risk Reduction
Opportunities
$50M
Collaboration Fora:
EXISTING:
- Integrated Transition Team
SUMO Special Interest Group*
CCSDS Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services
One-on-one technical interchanges
DEFINED:
Letter of Intent
Space Industrial Base Council Working Group
DPA Title III Presidential Determination
DEVELOPING:
Cooperative R&D Agreements
Consortium for Space Industry Standards
DARPA: F6
Experiment
Opportunities
$300M
NASA:
Common
Instrument
Interface
SMC:
MONA and SNAP
for
Hosted payload
interfaces
Leverage past and present government and industry investments to progress from proprietary, custom architectures to modular, open network architectures
NASA:
SpaceAge Bus
$4M,
13 Missions
AFRL:
MONARCH
(SPA)
$130M
Industry:
Time-Triggered
Gigabit
Ethernet
Industry:
SPA Variants
Industry:
Universal
Qualification
Environments
NASA:
Core Flight
Executive
$12M,
20 Missions
Industry:
IRAD
>$100M
Industry:
Integrated
Modular
Architecture
Industry:
Platform
Commonality
Framework
On-going Initiatives Have Many Similarities *

9. Space Avionics Open Interface Architecture (SAVOIR)*
SAVOIR: an undertaking led by space European Agencies and Industries aiming at promoting Space Avionics based on Open Interfaces
In its first phase, SAVOIR has federated the space avionics community around the concept of reference architectures, standard interfaces, and generic specifications
SAVOIR second phase includes the refinement of reference architectures, the elaboration of a product portfolio, and the production of two sets of generic specifications
The maturity and completeness of the SAVOIR concept will be assessed by building lab demonstrators integrating a consistent set of items
*From ESA Website (

10. Business Case from Cost Analysis
Aerospace Corp modeled US Satellite Market to quantify savings on cost of bus
Model included capture rate, technology insertion, obsolescence, integration complexity, organizational complexity, etc.
Model reviewed twice by ODNI CAIG
Findings:
Over 17 years and 442 satellites
Savings was $18.8B (29%)
Payback Period was 9 Years
Commercial space has the greatest savings due to high volume (learning)
Government savings reduced by low volume (learning) and organizational complexity
Not all SUMO benefits were monetized
Net present value through ease of reconfigurability should increase

11. …a word about the Cost Model
Modeled full plug and play
Industry has made clear they are not ready for full plug and play; SUMO cost analysis will differ but this model gives a first approximation of savings
Modeled 5 to 7 years satellite bus acquisition
Industry feedback indicates 2 to 3 years is reasonable…would accelerate crossover point
Modeled the costs of two full satellites
New approach models delta costs on top of funded project…reduces upfront NRE
NRO not modeled to gain learning from commercial industry
Commercial industry buying 20 satellites per year
Modeled increased organizational conflict as more participants engaged and provided input
Reduced savings by 30%; realistic for the first decade but reasonable to expect conflicts to be resolved over time (based on MilSTD-1553 experience)
An Average of 29% Savings on the Cost of a Bus is Significant

12. Potential Advantages Beyond Cost Savings
Mission Assurance
Increased Cost Sharing with Standard Interfaces for Hosted Payload
Multi-mission Flexibility; Mission Reconfigurability
Reduced Build Schedule
Plug-n-play Enabled Innovation and Technology Insertion
Enhanced Monitoring and Anomaly Identification and Resolution
Higher Data Rate Potential for New Capabilities and Additional Revenue Stream
Industries Which Standardize Interfaces Often see Growth and Improved Performance

13. Government Outreach and Support
Goal: understand policy & budget drivers, and industrial base policy issues.
Government Buyers & Stakeholders: Focus on affordability, responsiveness and ability to maintain programs of record during budget driven era.
Deputy Administrator, Ch Eng, Ch Tech, GSFC Administrator are very supportive. Representative to CCSDS.
Iterating on SUMO Transition Plan, developed SpaceAGE Bus and Core Flight Executive
NASA
AT&L is very supportive. Helping SUMO propose for Title-III funds.
AFSPC/CV is a “big fan of interface standards”.
SMC/XR is developing industry-driven MONA (a part of SUMO); iterating SUMO transition plan. AFRL created SPA.
SMC also asked prime to investigate “universal” components
DoD IC
PDDNI and ADNI/AT&F full support. Released CIG language.
NRO is looking for components which could be “universalized”; conducted modular bus study.
Policy
OSTP supporting SUMO.
NSC and OMB are very supportive.
DoC (including ITA and NIST) are engaged.

14. Collaboration with NASA, SMC, & NRO
Seeking strategies to influence industry to provide modular, open networked space capabilities
Developing approaches to overcome key challenges
Utilize innovative acq approaches and small, strategic investments
Business case must be acceptable to industry
Step-in/step-out influence
Goal of reducing cost on spacecraft w/o negatively impacting science return, system reliability, operations
Adopting an approach to leverage standards and create commonality in software, hardware, interfaces and tools
Approach is vendor agnostic, allows for evolution and technology insertion
A modular bus with standard, open interfaces will drive down NRE
A Unified Mindset with Collaborative Interaction Growing Across the Government

15. Industry Outreach and Support
Interaction through Request for Information (RFI) on FedBizOps, several SIA & AIA sponsored workshops, conferences, site visits, telecoms and questionnaires
Satellite Operators: Support
Potential improvement on Return on Investment and Net Present Value
Also support buying services versus systems; Support hosted payloads
Encourage commercial best practices
Primes & Integrators: Conditionally Support
Concerned about Reduced Profit; Suggested FFP acquisitions
Prefer to promote proprietary solutions; will comply if gov’t requires SUMO
Need government funding to compensate for long term return (~ 9 years)
Very supportive of Common Qual Environment; ready to engage
Also support Stable requirements; Risk tolerance
Component Manufacturers: Strongly Support
Stabilize the industrial base; lower NRE; improve competitiveness
Common processes (testing) for hardware will expand margins
Avoid commoditization; prefer implementation on new products
Interface standards reduce barriers to market entry
Satellite Integration Subs: Strongly Support
Somewhat biased; confirmed that SUMO is technically feasible and can reduce costs and assembly times
End to End (E2E) Service Providers: Ambivalent
Buy services versus systems; learn from commercial buyers
More dialogue with industry
Industry unanimously noted that government commitment and funding is needed.

16. Why Many in Industry Support SUMO*
Classification
Why Many in Industry Support SUMO*
Bus design with interoperable components allow design emphasis on payload technologies
Suppliers can increase their production rates, margins and performance
Common qualification environments diminishes inventory risk, and improves quality
Increased use of fixed priced contracts for bus allows primes more latitude for controlling margins
Simplifies bus integration which allows innovation, reduces schedules and increases Net Present Value
Enhances global responsiveness through participation in international standards processes
Addresses cyber security risk
Public/private partnerships partially mitigate corporate upfront capital risk
Realistic, logical transition plan uses natural break-in points for gradual introduction
Interfaces will be carefully standardized to protect intellectual property and promote innovation
Step-in/step-out approach encourages industry-consensus standards and product differentiation
A modular, open architecture such as SUMO presents a Space Industry Dilemma
*Based on interviews and written responses
Classification

17. Notional SUMO Transition Plan
The Transition Plan is “notional” because it was created by a small, experienced team; not yet by the executing agencies
Comprised of former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Deputy Under Secretary for Space, Director of Space Transportation (NASA/HQ), Director of SIGINT Acquisition (NRO), VP of Space Systems, NASA Programs (Industry)
Proposes Executive Coordination by Space Industrial Base Council
Comprised of DoD(AT&L), DNI/AT&F, USAF, NASA, NRO, MDA, NOAA
Phased to achieve early gains with regionalized qualification environment while defining Architecture of Standards for interfaces
Establishes role for certification agent and certification process
Progresses from interface definition to interface development to bench test to demo flight to program of record
Plan tied to FYDP budget cycle; budget profiles aligned to sources
Proposed sources include DPA Title III, Industry, and Executing Agents

18. Notional SUMO Transition Plan
FY Budget Cycle Windows
FY15 Bgt Cycle
FY17 Bgt Cycle
FY19 Bgt Cycle
FY21 Bgt Cycle
FY16 Bgt Cycle
FY18 Bgt Cycle
FY20 Bgt Cycle
FY22 Bgt Cycle
Exec Coord (SIBC)
Agency LOIs/MoAs
Agency Budget Coord (annual)
LOIs SIGNED
MoAs
SIGNED
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
Universalization/CQE D
K/O
1 - Regional Components
1 - Universal Components … D
The Transition Plan is “notional” because it was created by a small, experienced team; not yet by the executing agencies
Comprised of former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Deputy Under Secretary for Space, Director of Space Transportation (NASA/HQ), Director of SIGINT Acquisition (NRO), VP of Space Systems, NASA Programs (Industry)
Proposes Executive Coordination by Space Industrial Base Council
Comprised of DoD(AT&L), DNI/AT&F, USAF, NASA, NRO, MDA, NOAA
Phased to achieve early gains with regionalized qualification environment while defining Architecture of Standards for interfaces
Establishes role for certification agent and certification process
Progresses from interface definition to interface development to bench test to demo flight to program of record
Plan tied to FYDP budget cycle; budget profiles aligned to sources
Proposed sources include DPA Title III, Industry, and Executing Agents
2a/b - SUMO AoS & EDS Dev
CCSDS (Qtrly) D D D
K/O
INT’L
US SUMO & EDS R2
B = Submit Bgt
S = Start Work
D = Deliver
LEGEND …
= Multiple
Deliveries
SUMO Objective
Starting
Initial
Partial
Full
2c - Certification Program
Define Process & Agent
Execute Certification
DRFT
AGNT
FNL
1st
5th
12th
2d - Plug Side of SUMO
Demonstration Prgms (Bench) B S D … D
3 - Play Side of SUMO
Proto-Flight
Programs of Record (POR) B S D … D B
ACQ S D … D
SUMO-Next
DRFT
PLAN
FINAL
PLAN
EXECUTION

19. Way-Forward Highlights
Develop a Presidential Determination for Title III Funding
Getting agency engagement on near-term tasks including:
Coordinating Letter Of Intent and developing a Memorandum of Agreement
Supporting Space Industrial Base Council (SIBC) Integrated Transition Team and Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) forums with assigned personnel
Expanding US SUMO Special Interest Group and Industry Consensus Fora
Coordinate with Agencies for Transition plan to include fiscal programming
Define and develop Regionalization/Universalization Common Qual Environment initiatives
Gain AIAA (and CCSDS) engagement on leading three aspects of SUMO AoS development
Electronic Data Sheets, Physical Electrical Interfaces, Data (SW Stack)
Refine and Validate Budget analysis
Advance Stakeholders from “Interested” to “Committed by Action”

20. BACK UPS

21. EU Standardized External Power Supply
In 2009 several government, consumer and industry initiatives resulted in the European Union's specification of a common External Power Supply (EPS) for use with data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU.
The "external power supply" is the AC power adapter that converts household AC electricity voltages to the much lower DC voltages needed to charge a mobile phone's internal battery.
Although compliance is voluntary, a majority of the world's largest mobile phone manufacturers have agreed to make their applicable mobile phones compatible with the EU's common External Power Supply.
From

22. The Market Leader’s Dilemma: Diminish an Existing Capability to Develop a New Capability?
Custom Bus is here
Period of Fine-tuning
Capability
Period of Compounded Innovation
Modular Bus is here
Period of Early Development
Time
Adapted From: Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen

23. Space Avionics Open Interface Architecture (SAVOIR)*
SAVOIR: an undertaking led by space European Agencies and Industries aiming at promoting Space Avionics based on Open Interfaces
In its first phase, SAVOIR has federated the space avionics community around the concept of reference architectures, standard interfaces, and generic specifications. All these elements are expected to favor the existence of compatible Suppliers product lines. The major outcomes of the initial phase are R&D roadmaps and a prioritized list of building blocks.
SAVOIR second phase includes the refinement of reference architectures, the elaboration of a product portfolio, and the production of two sets of generic specifications covering  on-board computer (OBC) and data concentrator (RTU) functions. The portfolio includes also many items related to architectures, communication protocols, data handling services, software libraries, sensors, actuators together with underlying enabling technologies. Each item could lead to a generic specification, validation through prototyping and eventually product(s) with an attached availability date for a given Technology Readiness Level [TRL].
The maturity and completeness of the SAVOIR concept will be assessed by building lab demonstrators integrating a consistent set of items. The selection criteria for those items will be driven by their maturity at a  given date with the particular goal of demonstrating their readiness for project use.
*From ESA Website (

24. Tenets for Success Leverage Existing Standards and Think Global
Use existing standards to the extent practical (based upon industry consensus).
Examples: Space Modular and P&P standards are being developed by AFRL, ESA, NASA and industry. Also Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) standards body has made significant progress on Electronic Data Sheets (EDSs).
Short-term: Start with US Stakeholders; Long-term: Establish international standards 
Space Industry Consensus
Industry consensus for universalized component interface standards and common qualification environment standards through existing standards bodies
Include participation from U.S. space agencies, commercial satellite operators, spacecraft primes, and component manufacturers.
Avoid Commoditization – Protect Intellectual Property
Focus on data bus interface with sub-systems & components. Avoid defining “inside the box” where unique designs and intellectual property reside.
Allow vendors to differentiate capabilities while maintaining standard interfaces.
Avoid innovation “lock out” – a common problem for standards that over reach.
Natural Break-In Points for Gradual Introduction
Opportunistic insertion of SUMO into “natural break in points” – where primes or component manufacturers are developing new products.
Introduce SUMO early during the concept/design phase – avoids disruption of existing solutions, architectures, sunk costs and vested equities.

25. Potential Advantages Beyond Cost Savings
Benefit
Satellite Investor or User
US Space Industrial Base (SIB)
National Security Space Stakeholders
Mission Assurance
As P&P bus and CCs become heritage -- they will enhance reliability and overall mission assurance.
Lower risk profiles decrease cost of insurance and improves global competitiveness.
NS often seeks high levels of mission assurance via heritage P&P and CCs.
Increased Cost Sharing
P&P buses are flexible and will encourage hosted payloads/ride sharing.
Hosted PLs will enhance affordability of space to a wide range of users. Short term some space companies will win & others will lose as space clients begin to seek out ride sharing agreements & resource sharing opportunities.
Fiscal austerity may require that stakeholders economize and share resources to meet budget constraints.
Multi-mission Flexibility
P&P bus -- mission flexibility exists within certain physical limits of power and mass. This benefit is not monetized in our analysis.
US SIB could become more competitive internationally as CC increases manufacturing economies of scale and P&P bus allows for mission flexibility.
NS stakeholders could benefit from flexibility in a world where threats and priorities constantly change.
Reduced Build Schedule
Partially Monetized -- P&P and CCs allow for compressing time between concept and delivery and ensures deployed systems are current.
Ability to respond quickly to changing market priorities and customer’s requests.
Defense & IC stakeholders seek new ways to respond quickly in new theaters.
P&P Enabling Innovation
Partially Monetized - P&P platforms allow for easier and less expensive technology insertion. Payload manufacturers can focus on innovation rather than NRE.
Yes - US SIB outperforms competitors and regains space technology leadership
Yes – NS stakeholders may use P&P platforms as test beds, prototypes and even replacements for expensive larger systems.
Future Capabilities – Enhanced Monitoring
A P&P bus generates Xteds data which can be used for better processing & detection for anomaly resolution. Longer term, a P&P bus is smart enough to handle autonomous operation.
Enhanced Monitoring capability could provide competitive advantage to US SIB versus global competitors.
A better understanding and ability to quickly identify anomalies enhances space situational awareness (SSA).
Future Capabilities – High Data Rate
P&P bus could provide additional revenue streams as the P&P bus’s higher data rates allow for more bandwidth and as a result - additional revenues.
Establishing well defined, high data rate interfaces within the spacecraft avionics could be a new capability enabler, and a competitive advantage. Also could attract global clients with established standards for higher data rates.
It is possible that NS stakeholders may demand high bandwidth and rates for certain missions/applications.
Industries Which Standardize Interfaces Often see Growth and Improved Performance
CC = CQE Components; NS = National Security PL = Pay Load; P&P = Plug & Play; SIB = Space Industrial Base;

26. SUMO Modernizes the Space Industry
DPA Title III
SUMO
Strengthen the economic and technological competitiveness of the US defense industrial base
- Reduced component costs or higher vendor profit margins
- Increased economies of scale
Reduced barriers to entry; increased innovation
Performance-based competition
Balances ESA’s efforts to standardize
Reduce US dependency on foreign sources of supply for vital materials and technologies
Guards against increased reliance
Innovations increase demand
Capabilities transferable to commercial industry
In concert with ITAR reform, expands the market place
Increase the supply, improve the quality, and reduce the cost of advanced materials and technologies
Develops industry-consensus interface standards
Lower NRE/higher reuse; improved quality
Economies of scale
Create, maintain, expand, protect, restore, or modernize the production capabilities of domestic suppliers whose technologies and products are critical to the nation’s security
Ease of satellite bus reconfigurability
Improved Net Present Value; quicker integration
Interoperability of like components
Modernizes the industry’s ability to design, manufacture and integrate satellites
Industry needs government support
Business case doesn’t close w/o government early investment
Profitability cross-over point – 9 years
The commercial marketplace widely accepts and supports open interface standards, set by recognized standards
organizations. These standards support interoperability, portability, scalability, and technology insertion. When selecting
commercial or non-developmental items, the PM will prefer open interface standards and commercial item
descriptions. If acquiring products with closed interfaces, the PM will conduct a business case analysis to justify
acceptance of the associated economic impacts on total ownership cost and risks to technology insertion and maturation
over the service life of the system.

27. SUMO
MIL-STD-1553
SUMO proposes the development and implementation of a universal Architecture of Standards that will define the electrical and data interfaces for a satellite bus
MIL-STD-1553 is a military standard published by the US DoD that describes the method of communication and the electrical interface requirements for subsystems connected to the data bus.
MIL-STD-1553 published as a US Air Force standard originally designed for use with military avionics.
First used on the F-16 fighter aircraft
Like 1553, SUMO will evolve starting with modular architecture requirements for satellite avionics
MIL-STD-1553A published
MIL-STD-1553B published
Multiple designs quickly followed including the F-18 and AH-64 Apache
MIL-STD-1553B released as a tri-services (Air Force, Army and Navy) standard
The SUMO industry consensus architecture of standards will develop within an international standards organization
SUMO will focus on the interoperability of the interfaces to provide flexibility and reliability
MIL-STD-1553B adopted by NATO
1993 – MIL-STD-1553B validated for use in acquisition
Seven change notices to the standard have been published since 1978
Electrical interfaces explicitly specified to assure compatibility between designs by different manufacturers
Flexibility without creating new designs for each new user
Expanded international adoption into Europe and Asia
Following in the footsteps of aircraft pioneers, space industrialists are now ready for a more mature business model where expensive custom built space systems give way to universal satellite manufacturing standards
MIL-STD-1553 TODAY
MIL-STD-1553 has evolved into the predominant, internationally accepted networking standard for the integration of military platforms
MIL-STD-1553 has expanded beyond its traditional aircraft domain to encompass applications for combat vehicles, ships, satellites, missiles, and the International Space Station
The basic difference between the 1553A and 1553B revisions is that in the latter, the options are defined rather than being left for the user to define as required. It was found that when the standard did not define an item, there was no coordination in its use. Hardware and software had to be redesigned for each new application.

28. Anecdotes from Industry
Cost: Two manufacturers have stated that custom components are twice as expensive as standard components Focus on New Products: A component manufacturer stated that their existing products are already configurable to seven different primes – however, new products represent a “green field” opportunity to demonstrate interface standardization. Opportunity Costs and NRE: Many component manufacturers have stated that spending engineering resources for customizing interfaces is an opportunity cost – they would prefer to apply resources towards performance and innovation. Competitive Advantage: A component manufacturer indicated that they must design their products to fit almost 20 different interfaces . Their overseas competitor, on the other hand, has fully automated their production line – building to only two interfaces

29. Future orders are not fully accounted for – beyond 2016.
Global Market Trends
Future orders are not fully accounted for – beyond 2016.
Expanding international market drives the benefit to follow global standards

30. Summary Funding Approach & Assumptions for Transition Period
Funding Source
Activity or Entity
Funding Approach & Assumptions
Title III
Re-Prgm’d (Agency)
Dscrt’nry (Agency)
FY Budget (Agency)
IR&D
(Industry)
Executive Coordination
ODNI and Agency (SMC, NASA, IC Agency) Discretionary Resources for FY 13/14. FY Budgets in FY15+. P
FY 13/14
FY 15+
SIBC
Funded via SIBC Membership (Industry)
Regionalization
Funded by Title III and Industry. Objective is early gains toward universalization
Universalization
Funded by Title III and Industry. Develop universal components.
SUMO AoS & EDS (CCSDS)
No explicit SUMO funding provided to CCSDS org. SUMO funding provides resources for SUMO stakeholders to contribute in CCSDS SUMO WG forums
Primes/Suppliers funded w/ Title III, CRAD, IRAD (Risk#1)
SUMO Certification
HW/SW Mods to upgrade (U/G) Universalized to SUMO I/Fs– Title III & IR&D
FY13/14 - Define Cert. Concept, Draft Processes - Final Process/Procedures, Certification Execution, Train Certifiers
FY15 - FY % Certifying Authority Operating Expense funded by Agencies; balance paid by component developer or sponsor
FY % of Certifying Authority Operating Expense charged to component developer or sponsor (i.e., paid by Programs)
SUMO U/G Mods, Certifi-cation Expense
FY15-17
(Agencies)
Demonstration
(Bench Tests,
Flt Tests)
Bench Tests (mandatory) funded by Title III – Key objective is to demonstrate collection of SUMO Certified components plug ‘n play
2 demo flights, each on an ESPA ring - $20M each for two of three agencies
Bench
Flight
Proto-Flight Programs
Baseline Proto-Flight Programs (one-off missions) at $250M (Bus Only); one each Agency
SUMO compliance adds 10% or $25M to first article build per one-off mission
Programs of Record (POR)
Baseline Programs of Record at $350M (Bus Only); one each Agency
SUMO compliance add 5% or $18M to first build of production run
SUMO-Next
Funded by ODNI
Cost model for Proto-Flight and PORs are estimates based on Primes seeing 5-10% cost impact to SUMO-ize their busses. An alternate model has Primes working to SUMO-ize their busses in parallel with component universalizaion and certification via IR&D or other new programs. Example: at least one prime is already at PDR maturity in implementing Space Wire (a likely SUMO sanctioned standard) in a POR as of This represents a significant move forward in SUMO-izing a prime’s bus. Under this scenario, there may be no cost upper for a proto-flight or POR; indeed there could be savings with use of SUMO-certified components that Plug-n-Play into Prime’s busses. Also, need to remember these programs will be competitive so Primes will be highly motivated to retire most if not all SUMO-izing NRE as a bid discriminator.

31. Cost Savings Model
Aerospace recently modeled the US satellite market to quantify the savings which may be achieved from “universal” components and from applying SpaceWire and SUMO.
Variables include: capture rate, integration complexity, design compression, organizational complexity, rate of obsolescence and frequency of technology insertion, planned build quantity, and program length.
Results indicate that billions of dollars can be saved.

32. Cost Savings using SUMO

33. Potential Economies of Scale Avgerage Satellite Quantity Per Year
Component
Style
SV Class (Component Qty per SV)
1 Year
20 Years
LEO1
LEO2
LEO3
LEO4
GEO1
GEO2
Total
Torque Rods
Style A 3 17
330
Style B 4 72
Style C 34
684
Style D 7
138
Reaction Wheel/CMGs 49
984 9
184 59
1184
Style E 27
544
Sun Sensors 6 33
660
219
4380
Magnetometers 1
110 2 29
572
Star Trackers
120
1436
IMUs
GPS Receivers
Transponders 77
1546
Integrated CDH 5 8
288
5752
Processor Boards
Solar Cells
752
2372
2959
11090
9274
19895
338763
Battery Cell 13 24 28
606
12124
Main Engine 22
432
Maneuver Thrusters
130
2592
RCS Thrusters 12
350
7000
Avgerage Satellite Quantity Per Year
5.5
1.2
11.4
2.3
14.8
6.8
Table gives an indication where universal components are possible/likely across SV classes
There may be more than one manufacturer for each style of component
“Universal” components present opportunities for improved economies of scale

34. SUMO Transition Plan Phasing
Phase 1 - Universal Components – Selected Set of Components Qualified Over Broad Range of Performance and Environmental Requirement Envelopes
Performance, Common Qualification Environment (CQE), Test Approach, Parts/Matl’s/Processes
Phase 3: Standard Vehicle Interfaces - Play Side
Adaptors needed less as the bus I/F becomes standardized to accept components.
3a: Proto-Flight Programs - One-off programs; some adapters may be needed
3b: Programs of Record – Bus designed to be SUMO compatible, built with SUMO-certified comps.
Proactive Industry Consensus -- The Foundation
Via CCSDS – or standards body appropriate to domain
Consider SPA, SAVOIR, IMA and other US, European and global standards
Longer term progress from modular to Plug & Play – if supported by industry
Consider cost control and ability to universalize without unacceptable SWaP penalties
Phase 2 - Standard Component Interfaces – Plug Side
2a: SUMO AoS Defined – Standard Interface Definition
Led by CCSDS or appropriate standards body
2b: Electronic Data Sheets (EDS) -- a Common Language
Develop EDS, a common, machine readable, language to document interfaces
Leverage AFRL’s SPA & CCSDS efforts for an early win.
EDS development allows for reduced NRE including test & simulation.
2c: Certified Components – Universal Components w/ SUMO Compatibility
Incorporate SUMO standardized electrical & data I/F into Universal Components.
Create adaptor device to convert between certified comp. and specific bus mfgr.
2d: SUMO Demos – Bench Tests with Certified Components
Use adapters if needed between Certified Components and bus