Space Universal Modular Architecture

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