Space Universal Modular Architecture

downtownbeeMechanics

Nov 18, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

58 views

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