2 Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO) September 2013Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)Setting the Environment for Industry-Consensus StandardsBernie CollinsODNI/AT&F
3 SUMO Agenda Introduction Outreach and Support: Government Outreach and Support: IndustryCost Savings and Other BenefitsTransition Plan
4 Space Universal MOdular Architecture (SUMO) ClassificationSpace 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)ODNIUS Space Industrial BaseMore Competitive InternationallyLarger Addressable MarketLess Time to Market/OrbitIncreased InnovationUS Government BuyerReduced Acquisition CostsEnhanced CapabilitiesNROCollaborationSUMO Certified ComponentsSpace UniversalMOdular architectureSUMOPlug & PlayAFRLStandardsProcessSMCTransitionPlanNASAIndustryClassification
5 Modular Bus with Open Interfaces Component Interfaces Defined by the ApplicationComponent Interfaces Defined by Industry ConsensusSupplier ASupplier APrime XPrime XORORSupplier BPrime YSupplier BORPrime YORSupplier CPrime ZSupplier CORPrime ZORCatalog, Common, or Custom BusModular Bus with Open Interfaces
6 Software Layering Diagram SUMO defines the interfaces through industryconsensus
7 Tenets for Success Leverage Existing Standards and Think Global Space Industry ConsensusAvoid Commoditization – Protect Intellectual PropertyNatural Break-In Points for Gradual IntroductionAvoid disrupting current programs
8 SUMO Evolutionary Path AFRL:NGSISORS:MSVRisk ReductionOpportunities$50MCollaboration Fora:EXISTING:- Integrated Transition TeamSUMO Special Interest Group*CCSDS Spacecraft Onboard Interface ServicesOne-on-one technical interchangesDEFINED:Letter of IntentSpace Industrial Base Council Working GroupDPA Title III Presidential DeterminationDEVELOPING:Cooperative R&D AgreementsConsortium for Space Industry StandardsDARPA:F6ExperimentOpportunities$300MNASA:CommonInstrumentInterfaceSMC:MONA and SNAPforHosted payloadinterfacesLeverage past and present government and industry investments to progress from proprietary, custom architectures to modular, open network architecturesNASA:SpaceAge Bus$4M,13 MissionsAFRL:MONARCH(SPA)$130MIndustry:Time-TriggeredGigabitEthernetIndustry:SPA VariantsIndustry:UniversalQualificationEnvironmentsNASA:Core FlightExecutive$12M,20 MissionsIndustry:IRAD>$100MIndustry:IntegratedModularArchitectureIndustry:PlatformCommonalityFrameworkOn-going Initiatives Have Many Similarities*http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uspacesig
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 InterfacesIn its first phase, SAVOIR has federated the space avionics community around the concept of reference architectures, standard interfaces, and generic specificationsSAVOIR second phase includes the refinement of reference architectures, the elaboration of a product portfolio, and the production of two sets of generic specificationsThe maturity and completeness of the SAVOIR concept will be assessed by building lab demonstrators integrating a consistent set of items*From ESA Website (http://www.congrex.nl/11c22/)
10 Business Case from Cost Analysis Aerospace Corp modeled US Satellite Market to quantify savings on cost of busModel included capture rate, technology insertion, obsolescence, integration complexity, organizational complexity, etc.Model reviewed twice by ODNI CAIGFindings:Over 17 years and 442 satellitesSavings was $18.8B (29%)Payback Period was 9 YearsCommercial space has the greatest savings due to high volume (learning)Government savings reduced by low volume (learning) and organizational complexityNot all SUMO benefits were monetizedNet present value through ease of reconfigurability should increase
11 …a word about the Cost Model Modeled full plug and playIndustry 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 savingsModeled 5 to 7 years satellite bus acquisitionIndustry feedback indicates 2 to 3 years is reasonable…would accelerate crossover pointModeled the costs of two full satellitesNew approach models delta costs on top of funded project…reduces upfront NRENRO not modeled to gain learning from commercial industryCommercial industry buying 20 satellites per yearModeled increased organizational conflict as more participants engaged and provided inputReduced 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 AssuranceIncreased Cost Sharing with Standard Interfaces for Hosted PayloadMulti-mission Flexibility; Mission ReconfigurabilityReduced Build SchedulePlug-n-play Enabled Innovation and Technology InsertionEnhanced Monitoring and Anomaly Identification and ResolutionHigher Data Rate Potential for New Capabilities and Additional Revenue StreamIndustries 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 ExecutiveNASAAT&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” componentsDoDICPDDNI and ADNI/AT&F full support. Released CIG language.NRO is looking for components which could be “universalized”; conducted modular bus study.PolicyOSTP 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 capabilitiesDeveloping approaches to overcome key challengesUtilize innovative acq approaches and small, strategic investmentsBusiness case must be acceptable to industryStep-in/step-out influenceGoal of reducing cost on spacecraft w/o negatively impacting science return, system reliability, operationsAdopting an approach to leverage standards and create commonality in software, hardware, interfaces and toolsApproach is vendor agnostic, allows for evolution and technology insertionA modular bus with standard, open interfaces will drive down NREA 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 questionnairesSatellite Operators: SupportPotential improvement on Return on Investment and Net Present ValueAlso support buying services versus systems; Support hosted payloadsEncourage commercial best practicesPrimes & Integrators: Conditionally SupportConcerned about Reduced Profit; Suggested FFP acquisitionsPrefer to promote proprietary solutions; will comply if gov’t requires SUMONeed government funding to compensate for long term return (~ 9 years)Very supportive of Common Qual Environment; ready to engageAlso support Stable requirements; Risk toleranceComponent Manufacturers: Strongly SupportStabilize the industrial base; lower NRE; improve competitivenessCommon processes (testing) for hardware will expand marginsAvoid commoditization; prefer implementation on new productsInterface standards reduce barriers to market entrySatellite Integration Subs: Strongly SupportSomewhat biased; confirmed that SUMO is technically feasible and can reduce costs and assembly timesEnd to End (E2E) Service Providers: AmbivalentBuy services versus systems; learn from commercial buyersMore dialogue with industryIndustry unanimously noted that government commitment and funding is needed.
16 Why Many in Industry Support SUMO* ClassificationWhy Many in Industry Support SUMO*Bus design with interoperable components allow design emphasis on payload technologiesSuppliers can increase their production rates, margins and performanceCommon qualification environments diminishes inventory risk, and improves qualityIncreased use of fixed priced contracts for bus allows primes more latitude for controlling marginsSimplifies bus integration which allows innovation, reduces schedules and increases Net Present ValueEnhances global responsiveness through participation in international standards processesAddresses cyber security riskPublic/private partnerships partially mitigate corporate upfront capital riskRealistic, logical transition plan uses natural break-in points for gradual introductionInterfaces will be carefully standardized to protect intellectual property and promote innovationStep-in/step-out approach encourages industry-consensus standards and product differentiationA modular, open architecture such as SUMO presents a Space Industry Dilemma*Based on interviews and written responsesClassification
17 Notional SUMO Transition Plan The Transition Plan is “notional” because it was created by a small, experienced team; not yet by the executing agenciesComprised 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 CouncilComprised of DoD(AT&L), DNI/AT&F, USAF, NASA, NRO, MDA, NOAAPhased to achieve early gains with regionalized qualification environment while defining Architecture of Standards for interfacesEstablishes role for certification agent and certification processProgresses from interface definition to interface development to bench test to demo flight to program of recordPlan tied to FYDP budget cycle; budget profiles aligned to sourcesProposed sources include DPA Title III, Industry, and Executing Agents
18 Notional SUMO Transition Plan FY Budget Cycle WindowsFY15 Bgt CycleFY17 Bgt CycleFY19 Bgt CycleFY21 Bgt CycleFY16 Bgt CycleFY18 Bgt CycleFY20 Bgt CycleFY22 Bgt CycleExec Coord (SIBC)Agency LOIs/MoAsAgency Budget Coord (annual)LOIs SIGNEDMoAsSIGNEDFY15FY16FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21FY22Universalization/CQEDK/O1 - Regional Components1 - Universal Components…DThe Transition Plan is “notional” because it was created by a small, experienced team; not yet by the executing agenciesComprised 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 CouncilComprised of DoD(AT&L), DNI/AT&F, USAF, NASA, NRO, MDA, NOAAPhased to achieve early gains with regionalized qualification environment while defining Architecture of Standards for interfacesEstablishes role for certification agent and certification processProgresses from interface definition to interface development to bench test to demo flight to program of recordPlan tied to FYDP budget cycle; budget profiles aligned to sourcesProposed sources include DPA Title III, Industry, and Executing Agents2a/b - SUMO AoS & EDS DevCCSDS (Qtrly)DDDK/OINT’LUS SUMO & EDS R2B = Submit BgtS = Start WorkD = DeliverLEGEND…= MultipleDeliveriesSUMO ObjectiveStartingInitialPartialFull2c - Certification ProgramDefine Process & AgentExecute CertificationDRFTAGNTFNL1st5th12th2d - Plug Side of SUMODemonstration Prgms (Bench)BSD…D3 - Play Side of SUMOProto-FlightPrograms of Record (POR)BSD…DBACQSD…DSUMO-NextDRFTPLANFINALPLANEXECUTION
19 Way-Forward Highlights Develop a Presidential Determination for Title III FundingGetting agency engagement on near-term tasks including:Coordinating Letter Of Intent and developing a Memorandum of AgreementSupporting Space Industrial Base Council (SIBC) Integrated Transition Team and Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) forums with assigned personnelExpanding US SUMO Special Interest Group and Industry Consensus ForaCoordinate with Agencies for Transition plan to include fiscal programmingDefine and develop Regionalization/Universalization Common Qual Environment initiativesGain AIAA (and CCSDS) engagement on leading three aspects of SUMO AoS developmentElectronic Data Sheets, Physical Electrical Interfaces, Data (SW Stack)Refine and Validate Budget analysisAdvance Stakeholders from “Interested” to “Committed by Action”
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 herePeriod of Fine-tuningCapabilityPeriod of Compounded InnovationModular Bus is herePeriod of Early DevelopmentTimeAdapted 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 InterfacesIn 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 (http://www.congrex.nl/11c22/)
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 ConsensusIndustry consensus for universalized component interface standards and common qualification environment standards through existing standards bodiesInclude participation from U.S. space agencies, commercial satellite operators, spacecraft primes, and component manufacturers.Avoid Commoditization – Protect Intellectual PropertyFocus 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 IntroductionOpportunistic 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 BenefitSatellite Investor or UserUS Space Industrial Base (SIB)National Security Space StakeholdersMission AssuranceAs 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 SharingP&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 FlexibilityP&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 SchedulePartially 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 InnovationPartially 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 leadershipYes – NS stakeholders may use P&P platforms as test beds, prototypes and even replacements for expensive larger systems.Future Capabilities – Enhanced MonitoringA 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 RateP&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 PerformanceCC = CQE Components; NS = National Security PL = Pay Load; P&P = Plug & Play; SIB = Space Industrial Base;
26 SUMO Modernizes the Space Industry DPA Title IIISUMOStrengthen the economic and technological competitiveness of the US defense industrial base- Reduced component costs or higher vendor profit margins- Increased economies of scaleReduced barriers to entry; increased innovationPerformance-based competitionBalances ESA’s efforts to standardizeReduce US dependency on foreign sources of supply for vital materials and technologiesGuards against increased relianceInnovations increase demandCapabilities transferable to commercial industryIn concert with ITAR reform, expands the market placeIncrease the supply, improve the quality, and reduce the cost of advanced materials and technologiesDevelops industry-consensus interface standardsLower NRE/higher reuse; improved qualityEconomies of scaleCreate, maintain, expand, protect, restore, or modernize the production capabilities of domestic suppliers whose technologies and products are critical to the nation’s securityEase of satellite bus reconfigurabilityImproved Net Present Value; quicker integrationInteroperability of like componentsModernizes the industry’s ability to design, manufacture and integrate satellitesIndustry needs government supportBusiness case doesn’t close w/o government early investmentProfitability cross-over point – 9 yearsThe commercial marketplace widely accepts and supports open interface standards, set by recognized standardsorganizations. These standards support interoperability, portability, scalability, and technology insertion. When selectingcommercial or non-developmental items, the PM will prefer open interface standards and commercial itemdescriptions. If acquiring products with closed interfaces, the PM will conduct a business case analysis to justifyacceptance of the associated economic impacts on total ownership cost and risks to technology insertion and maturationover the service life of the system.
27 SUMOMIL-STD-1553SUMO proposes the development and implementation of a universal Architecture of Standards that will define the electrical and data interfaces for a satellite busMIL-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 aircraftLike 1553, SUMO will evolve starting with modular architecture requirements for satellite avionicsMIL-STD-1553A publishedMIL-STD-1553B publishedMultiple designs quickly followed including the F-18 and AH-64 ApacheMIL-STD-1553B released as a tri-services (Air Force, Army and Navy) standardThe SUMO industry consensus architecture of standards will develop within an international standards organizationSUMO will focus on the interoperability of the interfaces to provide flexibility and reliabilityMIL-STD-1553B adopted by NATO1993 – MIL-STD-1553B validated for use in acquisitionSeven change notices to the standard have been published since 1978Electrical interfaces explicitly specified to assure compatibility between designs by different manufacturersFlexibility without creating new designs for each new userExpanded international adoption into Europe and AsiaFollowing 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 standardsMIL-STD-1553 TODAYMIL-STD-1553 has evolved into the predominant, internationally accepted networking standard for the integration of military platformsMIL-STD-1553 has expanded beyond its traditional aircraft domain to encompass applications for combat vehicles, ships, satellites, missiles, and the International Space StationThe 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 TrendsFuture 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 SourceActivity or EntityFunding Approach & AssumptionsTitle IIIRe-Prgm’d (Agency)Dscrt’nry (Agency)FY Budget (Agency)IR&D(Industry)Executive CoordinationODNI and Agency (SMC, NASA, IC Agency) Discretionary Resources for FY 13/14. FY Budgets in FY15+.PFY 13/14FY 15+SIBCFunded via SIBC Membership (Industry)RegionalizationFunded by Title III and Industry. Objective is early gains toward universalizationUniversalizationFunded 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 forumsPrimes/Suppliers funded w/ Title III, CRAD, IRAD (Risk#1)SUMO CertificationHW/SW Mods to upgrade (U/G) Universalized to SUMO I/Fs– Title III & IR&DFY13/14 - Define Cert. Concept, Draft Processes - Final Process/Procedures, Certification Execution, Train CertifiersFY15 - FY % Certifying Authority Operating Expense funded by Agencies; balance paid by component developer or sponsorFY % of Certifying Authority Operating Expense charged to component developer or sponsor (i.e., paid by Programs)SUMO U/G Mods, Certifi-cation ExpenseFY15-17(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 play2 demo flights, each on an ESPA ring - $20M each for two of three agenciesBenchFlightProto-Flight ProgramsBaseline Proto-Flight Programs (one-off missions) at $250M (Bus Only); one each AgencySUMO compliance adds 10% or $25M to first article build per one-off missionPrograms of Record (POR)Baseline Programs of Record at $350M (Bus Only); one each AgencySUMO compliance add 5% or $18M to first build of production runSUMO-NextFunded by ODNICost 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 ModelAerospace 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.
33 Potential Economies of Scale Avgerage Satellite Quantity Per Year ComponentStyleSV Class (Component Qty per SV)1 Year20 YearsLEO1LEO2LEO3LEO4GEO1GEO2TotalTorque RodsStyle A317330Style B472Style C34684Style D7138Reaction Wheel/CMGs499849184591184Style E27544Sun Sensors6336602194380Magnetometers1110229572Star Trackers1201436IMUsGPS ReceiversTransponders771546Integrated CDH582885752Processor BoardsSolar Cells7522372295911090927419895338763Battery Cell13242860612124Main Engine22432Maneuver Thrusters1302592RCS Thrusters123507000Avgerage Satellite Quantity Per Year22.214.171.124.314.86.8Table gives an indication where universal components are possible/likely across SV classesThere 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 EnvelopesPerformance, Common Qualification Environment (CQE), Test Approach, Parts/Matl’s/ProcessesPhase 3: Standard Vehicle Interfaces - Play SideAdaptors needed less as the bus I/F becomes standardized to accept components.3a: Proto-Flight Programs - One-off programs; some adapters may be needed3b: Programs of Record – Bus designed to be SUMO compatible, built with SUMO-certified comps.Proactive Industry Consensus -- The FoundationVia CCSDS – or standards body appropriate to domainConsider SPA, SAVOIR, IMA and other US, European and global standardsLonger term progress from modular to Plug & Play – if supported by industryConsider cost control and ability to universalize without unacceptable SWaP penaltiesPhase 2 - Standard Component Interfaces – Plug Side2a: SUMO AoS Defined – Standard Interface DefinitionLed by CCSDS or appropriate standards body2b: Electronic Data Sheets (EDS) -- a Common LanguageDevelop EDS, a common, machine readable, language to document interfacesLeverage 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 CompatibilityIncorporate 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 ComponentsUse adapters if needed between Certified Components and bus