Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)"— Presentation transcript:

1

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 *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 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 (http://www.congrex.nl/11c22/)

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 (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 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


Download ppt "Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google