1. Path to Mission Concept Review
Michael J. Gazarik
Deputy Director for Programs
System Engineering Directorate
NASA Langley Research Center
October 23, 2008
Robert Reisse
CLARREO Study Project Manger
Contributors
Michelle Garn, Paul Speth, Steve Hall

2. Outline Science and Engineering Interaction: Key to Mission Success
Purpose of a Mission Concept Review (MCR)
Required Products for a Successful MCR
Schedule of Activities leading to MCR
Integrated System Engineering Team
What we need from the Science Community

3. CLARREO & DESDynI
CLARREO & DESDynI are the next Decadal Survey missions to be addressed by the ESD
Both missions are directed science missions with individual budget lines. They are managed out of the Earth Systematic Missions (ESM) Program Office located at GSFC
The CLARREO mission is led by LaRC, with GSFC support
Draft level 1 requirements & initial international partnership discussions, Fall 2008
Initial mission concepts, Spring 2009,
Full technology readiness assessment, MCR October 2009
The DESDynI is led by JPL, with a significant GSFC contribution
Mission configuration down select, Spring 2009
From Steve Volz, Associate Director, Flight Programs, NASA Earth Science Division

5. CALIPSO

6. NASA Mission LifeCycle
Pre-Phase A: Concept Studies
MCR: Mission Concept Review
Phase A: Concept & Technology Development
SRR: System Requirements Review
Phase B: Preliminary Design
PDR: Preliminary Design Review
Technology Readiness Level should be at least 6
Phase C: Final Design
CDR: Critical Design Review
Phase D: Assembly, Integration & Test
Phase E: Operations
Phase F: Closeout

7. Mission Concept Review (MCR)
Related to Key Decision Point (KDP A) – used by NASA to decide if mission should move into Phase A (Formulation)
Our opportunity to advocate to Agency management and independent review board that mission is well formulated and defined – with rationale for key decisions

8. Roadmap to Mission Concept Review (MCR)
Science Imperatives (Goals), Objectives, Questions
Objective: Establish a climate benchmark for testing/validation of climate models
Detailed Science Questions
Level 1 Requirements
From the objectives develop level 1 requirements.
CLARREO shall measure xx with an accuracy of xx and spatial resolution of xx, etc
MCR deliverable: Level 1 Requirements Document
Mission Requirements & Operational Concept
Develop mission requirements and a concept of operation for the mission from level
1 requirements.
MCR deliverable: Preliminary Mission Requirements Document
MCR deliverable: Preliminary Mission Operations Concept Document
Iterate
Mission Design
Robust Baseline Mission Design. Include descope options, cost, & schedule
MCR deliverable: Mission Concept Report, Schedule, Cost Analysis No
Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation
Assess technology maturity and develop a risk assessment & mitigation approach.
MCR deliverable: Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation Document
Initial concept
complete?
Yes
Mission Concept Review (MCR) – Must pass this review to move from the Pre-Phase A phase (i.e., Concept Studies) into Phase A (i.e., Concept and Technology Development)

9. MCR Deliverables Level 1 Requirements
Systems Drivers, strawman needed to start mission analysis
Preliminary Mission Requirements Document
Preliminary Mission Operations Concept Document
System Driven & Programmatic, mission analysis needed to develop these
Technology Maturity, Risk Assessment & Mitigation
Mission Acquisition Approach
Formulation Authorization Document (FAD) required to enter phase A
Cost Analysis Internal and External to Project
Work Breakdown Structure
Schedule
Full Project Lifecycle Schedule
Detailed Phase A Schedule
Other documents required
Architecture & System Concept Report
Mission Concept Report
Institutional Capabilities
V&V draft for risk reduction
Draft Project Plan
Systems Engineering Management Plan
MCR Presentation Package
Draft Configuration Management Plan

10. CLARREO Mission WBS WBS 1.0 WBS 2.0 WBS 3.0 WBS 4.0 WBS 5.0 WBS 6.0
Project Management
WBS 2.0
Systems Engineering
WBS 3.0
Safety & Mission Assurance
WBS 4.0
Science
WBS 5.0
Payload
WBS 6.0
Spacecraft
WBS 7.0
Mission Operations
WBS 8.0
Launch Systems
WBS 9.0
Ground Systems
WBS 10.0
Systems Integration and Test
WBS 11.0
Education & Public Outreach
WBS 1.1
Project Mgmt
WBS 2.1
Requiret’s
Devel. & Mgmt.
WBS 3.1
Safety & Mission Assurance Mgmt
WBS 4.1
Science Mgmt
WBS 5.1
Payload Mgmt
WBS 6.1
Spacecraft Mgmt
WBS 7.1
Mission Operations Mgmt
WBS 8.1
Launch Mgmt
WBS 9.1
Ground Systems Mgmt
WBS 10.1
Payload to Spacecraft Integration
WBS 4.2
Science Team
WBS 1.2
Business Mgmt
WBS 5.2 Payload
System Engineering
WBS 6.2
Spacecraft
WBS 7.2
Spacecraft Operations
WBS 8.2
Launch Vehicle
WBS 9.2
Ground Stations
WBS 10.2
Spacecraft to Launch Vehicle Integration
WBS 2,2
Risk Mgmt
WBS 3.2
System Safety
WBS 6.2.1
Spacecraft SE
WBS 4.3 Measure-ment Validation
WBS 1.3
Project Planning & Schedule Mgmt
WBS 7.3
Instrument Operations
WBS 8.2.1 SE
WBS 3.3
Reliability Engineering
WBS 5.3
Payload
WBS
Spacecraft Commanding
WBS 2,3 Configura-tion Mgmt
WBS 6.2.2
Structural
WBS 8.2.2
Interfaces
WBS 7.4
Data Processing
WBS 3.4
EEE Parts Engineering
WBS 4.4
Climate Modeling
WBS 5.3.1
Solar Spectro-meter
WBS 1.4
Project Reviews
WBS 6.2.3
C&DH
WBS 8.3
Launch Services
WBS 9.2.2
Data Relay
WBS 2.4
Trade Study Mgmt
WBS 3.5
Quality Assurance Engineering
WBS 1.5
Facilities
WBS 4.5
Science Data Support
WBS 5.3.2
Far IR Spectro-meter
WBS 6.2.4
Power
WBS 9.3
Communications
WBS
Battery
WBS 1.6
Travel
WBS 2.5
Interfaces
WBS 9.4
Ops Centers
WBS 3.6
Materials & Processes
Assurance
WBS 4.6
Operational Support
WBS 5.3.3
GPS Instrument
WBS
Solar Arrays
WBS 2,6
Contamination Control
WBS 3.7
Contamina-tion Control
Assurance
WBS
Charging & Distribution
WBS 4.7
Instrument Modeling
WBS 5.3.4
IR Spectro-meter
WBS 6.2.5
Thermal
WBS 2.7 Materials & Processes
WBS 3.8
Software IV&V
WBS 6.2.6
Communications
WBS 6.2.9
Pyro/ Release
WBS 6.2.7
Attitude Control, etc.
WBS 3.9
Mission Operations
Assurance
WBS
Attitude Control
WBS 6.2.8
Interfaces
WBS
Propulsion

11. CLARREO Systems Engineering Chart Project Systems Engineer
Michelle Garn
Consultant
John Rogers
SE Deliverables
Management
Rick Walker
Flight Systems
Integration
Craig Jones
Mission Design &
Analysis
Paul Speth
Operational
Concepts
Steve Hall
Payload Interface
Management
Dave Johnson
Requirements Management
Definition, flow down, tracking
Requirement mgt tool
Level 1 Requirements Doc
Mission Requirements Doc
Configuration Management
CM tool, processes, plan
Schedule Development
Project full life cycle
Detailed phase A plan
Science Trade Study Mgt
Tracking current studies
Identifying gaps
Technical Resource Mgt
Margins mgt
Technology Readiness
FAD
SEMP
Project Plan
Mission Acquisition Report
WBS
V&V
Monitor ICD Development & Control
Launch Vehicle Interface
Spacecraft Bus Interface
Mission Ops Interface
Ground Systems Interface
Software
Mission Concept Development
Identifying trades
Initial analysis (small team)
Developing Engineering Data Request Matrix
Developing Engineering Trade Matrix
Cost Analysis
Sub-systems being staffed
Orbital Mechanics
Thermal
Comm & Data
Optical
Structural
Mechanical
Power
Avionics
Electronics
Software
S/C Interfaces
Propulsion
Requirements
Instrument requirements
Science baseline mission focused on inter-calibration
Science baseline mission focused on benchmarking
Demonstration mission
Ground Systems
Mission Operations
Developing traceability between on-going trade studies and mission parameter requirements
GPS RO
Solar Reflected Spectrometer
Near-IR to Mid-IR Spectrometer
Mid-IR to Far-IR Spectrometer 11

12. Defining Engineering Space: Mission Trades
Number of satellites and orbit selection
Benchmark and/or inter-calibration
Diurnal cycle and/or orbital overlap for inter-calibration
Instrument redundancy
Spacecraft pointing versus nadir only
Spectral range and resolution
Spatial and temporal sampling requirements
Footprint size
GPS requirements
Validation approach (i.e., aircraft, other satellites, balloons, redundant instruments)
Level of international partnering
Scope of mission (i.e., demonstration versus operational mission)

13. Mission Trade Space Considerations
Mission Lifetime
Benchmark, Inter-calibration
Or Hybrid
Spacecraft Instrument
Suite and Redundancy
Diurnal Sampling or
Orbital Overlap
Pointing requirement
responsibility
Spacecraft Subsystem
Redundancy
Number of spacecraft
On-orbit operation & duty cycle
Spacecraft Operations &
Mission Implementation
Each variation of the top-level science implementation trades will flow into concurrent subsystem designs to characterize the overall trade space.
Attitude Mode
Stabilization Method
Component Sizing
CPU Throughput
Data storage
Instrument interfaces
TLM/CMD Frequency
TLM/CMD Ground Support
Modulation/ Encoding
Passive vs. Active
Payload Thermal Interfaces
Thermal Biasing
Array structure
Array articulation
Cell and Battery Sizing
Payload location / interfaces
Boom complexity
Meet thermal, viewing, and stiffness requirement
Fuel system config
Fuel and Engine trades
Tank sizing for max prop load

14. Define Engineering Space
Parallel Engineering Path
Define engineering space while science studies are underway
Utilize System Analysis Tools and Integrated Design Tools to efficiently study multiple mission concepts
Engineering in parallel – develop concept and key trades to get cost by March 2009
Expect Level 1 Requirements by April 2009 – narrow the trade space
Conduct traditional integrated design sessions to refine mission until MCR
Generate cost and technical assessment of mission concepts to support results of science trade results expected in Spring 2009
Balance the equation
Add cost, risk, and feasibility to discussions of science objectives
Sampling discussion: cost of additional spacecraft and launch, launch vehicle options
Solar and Infrared on same spacecraft: TRL assessment, mass, launch vehicle, cost
Field of View: mass and cost impact of 13Km FOV vs. 100Km FOV,
Crosstrack scanning: mass, power, cost, performance of scanner
Instrument Redundancy: cost of additional instruments
Baseline a mission concept with respect to NASA Standards and Expectations
Certified Launch Vehicles
Parametric and Grassroots cost estimation
Develop descope options to baseline concept
Close cooperation with Earth Science Systematic Mission Program Office
Leverage lessons learned from SMAP and ICESAT-II
Healthy tension

15. Fix
Prelim Results
Final Results

16. Integrated Systems Engineering Team
Complex mission
Climate is complex
Multiple instruments: solar, infrared, far-infrared and GPS
Not a process mission
Strong tie to standards and metrology
Realize Expertise in Climate Community
Consider Options that Reduce Mission Risk
Build a diverse and deep systems engineering team that encompasses instrumentation, on-ground calibration, on-orbit calibration, and level 1 processing
With consideration that some of the instruments and key subsystems will be selected through competitive process

17. What We Need from Science Team
What Engineering Team needs from Science team
Need rationale for key mission drivers:
Orbit determination – which orbit and how many?
Instrumentation: Solar, infrared and GPS on same spacecraft?
Field of view: zonal, regional, or global; facilitate attribution; facilitate validation; facilitate cross-calibration and benchmark
Inter-calibration concept, radiance benchmark concept, or both?
Crosstrack: nadir view only sufficient?
Spectral resolution: not as much of a driver at this stage (assuming >0.5 cm-1)
Detector noise performance: identify technology drivers & cyrocooler impact
Level 1 Science requirements
Incorporate: “Better is the evil of good enough” philosophy
Aiming for 80% solution
Ability to form to a consensus
Willingness to compromise
Recognition that continued debate will likely delay mission
Do we have a team that is interested in the mission, even at the cost of their particular interest?
Will issues be discussed with rationale tied to the mission science goals?
Studies with a focused approach
Answer a question that drives mission parameter