2
S
pace
U
niversal
Mo
dular Architecture
(SUMO)
Setting the Environment for Industry
-
Consensus Standards
September 2013
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
S
pace
U
niversal
MO
dular Architecture (
SUMO
)
SUMO Certified Components
Space Universal
MOdular architecture
SUMO
Plug & Play
Standards
Process
Collaboration
ODNI
NRO
Industry
AFRL
SMC
NASA
Transition
Plan
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)
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
5
Modular Bus with
Open Interfaces
Component Interfaces
Defined by the Application
Component Interfaces Defined
by Industry Consensus
Supplier A
Supplier B
Prime X
Prime Y
Supplier C
Prime Z
Catalog, Common, or
Custom Bus
Supplier A
Supplier B
Prime X
Prime Y
Supplier C
Prime Z
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
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
Industry:
Platform
Commonality
Framework
Industry:
SPA Variants
SUMO Evolutionary Path
SMC:
MONA and SNAP
for
Hosted payload
interfaces
ORS:
MSV
Risk Reduction
Opportunities
$50M
NASA:
Common
Instrument
Interface
AFRL:
MONARCH
(SPA)
$130M
DARPA:
F6
Experiment
Opportunities
$300M
NASA:
Core Flight
Executive
$12M,
20 Missions
Industry:
Time
-
Triggered
Gigabit
Ethernet
Industry:
Integrated
Modular
Architecture
NASA:
SpaceAge Bus
$4M,
13 Missions
Leverage past and present
government and industry
investments to progress from
proprietary, custom
architectures to modular,
open network architectures
Industry:
Universal
Qualification
Environments
Industry:
IRAD
>$100M
AFRL:
NGSIS
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
*http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi
-
bin/mailman/listinfo/uspacesig
On
-
going
Initiatives
H
ave 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 (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 $18.8B (29%)
•
Payback Period was 9 Years
–
Commercial space has the greatest savings
due to high volume (learning)
–
Government savings reduced by low volume
(learning) and organizational complexity
•
Not all SUMO benefits were monetized
–
Net present value through ease of
reconfigurability should increase
LEO 3
-
4, GEO 1
-
2
Government
&
Commercial Business
Case (100% Capture)
Potential Total
Cost
Savings is 29%
Cost Savings by Sponsor ($M)
Key Assumptions:
•
100% Capture Business Case (Bus only)
•
Government (3 organizations) + commercial satellites (1
organization)
•
Government develops
satellte
bus separately from
commercial
satellte
bus
•
LEO 3, LEO 4, GEO 1 and GEO 2 only
•
442 satellites over 17 years
•
Satellite build = 5 to 7 years
Results
:
•
Business
Case Closes
•
Payback Period= 9 Years(FY22)
•
Total Cost Savings = $18.8B
•
Cumulative Costs Savings = 29%
Component
Style
SV Class (Component Qty per SV)
1 Year
20 Years
LEO1
LEO2
LEO3
LEO4
GEO1
GEO2
Total
Total
Torque Rods
Style A
3
17
330
Style B
3
4
72
Style C
3
34
684
Style D
3
7
138
Reaction
Wheel/CMGs
Style A
3
17
330
Style B
3
4
49
984
Style
C
4
9
184
Style D
4
59
1184
Style E
4
27
544
Sun Sensors
Style A
6
33
660
Style B
6
6
6
6
6
219
4380
Magnetometers
Style A
1
6
110
Style B
1
2
2
29
572
Star Trackers
Style A
1
6
120
Style B
1
2
2
2
2
72
1436
IMUs
Style A
1
6
110
Style B
1
2
2
2
2
72
1436
GPS Receivers
Style A
1
6
110
Style B
1
2
2
29
572
Transponders
Style A
1
1
2
2
2
2
77
1546
Integrated CDH
Style A
4
5
6
8
8
8
288
5752
Processor Boards
Style A
4
5
6
8
8
8
288
5752
Solar Cells
Style A
752
2372
2959
11090
9274
19895
338763
6775264
Battery Cell
Style A
1
2
2
13
24
28
606
12124
Main Engine
Style A
1
1
22
432
Maneuver
Thrusters
Style A
6
6
130
2592
RCS Thrusters
Style A
4
4
4
8
12
12
350
7000
Avgerage Satellite
Quantity Per Year
5.5
1.2
11.4
2.3
14.8
6.8
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
•
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
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.
NASA
Policy
DoD
Government Outreach and Support
IC
•
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
•
PDDNI and ADNI/AT&F full support. Released CIG language.
•
NRO is looking for components which could be
“universalized”; conducted modular bus study.
•
OSTP supporting SUMO.
•
NSC and OMB are very supportive.
•
DoC (including ITA and NIST) are engaged.
14
Collaboration with NASA, SMC, & NRO
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
How the Space
Community Can Reap
the Benefits of
Modular Open Network
Architecture (MONA)
Dr. Roberta Ewart (SMC/XR)
8 April 2013
A Perspective from NASA on
Standardization and Commonality
28
SUMO Workshop Briefing
Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov
Glenn.P.Rakow@NASA.gov
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
-
Potential improvement on Return on Investment and Net Present Value
-
Also support buying services versus systems; Support hosted payloads
-
Encourage commercial best practices
Interaction through Request for Information (RFI) on
FedBizOps
, several SIA &
AIA sponsored workshops, conferences, site visits, telecoms and questionnaires
Satellite
Operators:
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
Industry Outreach and Support
Primes &
Integrators:
Conditionally
Support
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
-
Somewhat biased; confirmed that
SUMO is technically
feasible
and can reduce costs and assembly times
Satellite Integration Subs:
Strongly Support
-
Buy services versus systems; learn from commercial buyers
-
More dialogue with industry
End to End (E2E) Service
Providers: Ambivalent
Industry unanimously noted that government commitment and funding is needed.
16
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
16
A modular, open architecture such as SUMO presents a Space Industry Dilemma
*Based on interviews and written responses
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
B
B
2a/b
-
SUMO AoS & EDS Dev
CCSDS (
Qtrly
)
2c
-
Certification Program
•
Define Process & Agent
•
Execute Certification
3
-
Play Side of SUMO
•
Proto
-
Flight
•
Programs of Record (POR)
S
S
INT’L
S
FY15 Bgt Cycle
FY16 Bgt Cycle
FY17 Bgt Cycle
FY18 Bgt Cycle
FY19 Bgt Cycle
FY20 Bgt Cycle
FY21 Bgt Cycle
FY22 Bgt Cycle
K/O
LOIs
SIGNED
MoAs
SIGNED
2d
-
Plug Side of SUMO
•
Demonstration Prgms (Bench)
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
DRFT
AGNT
FNL
1
-
Regional Components
1
-
Universal Components
…
D
…
D
D
D
B
D
D
…
…
D
D
ACQ
…
D
D
SUMO
-
Next
DRFT
PLAN
FINAL
PLAN
EXECUTION
FY Budget Cycle Windows
Universalization/CQE
K/O
D
D
D
US SUMO &
EDS R2
D
1st
5th
12th
B = Submit Bgt
S = Start Work
D = Deliver
LEGEND
…
= Multiple
Deliveries
SUMO Objective
Starting
Initial
Partial
Full
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
CY19
CY20
CY21
CY22
CY23
CY24
CY13
CY14
CY15
CY16
CY17
CY18
Exec
Coord
(SIBC)
•
Agency LOIs/MoAs
•
Agency Budget Coord (annual)
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_External_Power_Supply
22
The Market Leader’s Dilemma: Diminish an Existing
Capability to Develop a New Capability?
Capability
Time
Adapted From: Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen
Period of Early Development
Period of Compounded Innovation
Period of Fine
-
tuning
Modular Bus is here
Custom Bus is here
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
File name:
-
File size:
-
Title:
-
Author:
-
Subject:
-
Keywords:
-
Creation Date:
-
Modification Date:
-
Creator:
-
PDF Producer:
-
PDF Version:
-
Page Count:
-
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Σχόλια 0
Συνδεθείτε για να κοινοποιήσετε σχόλιο