1 august 19, 2003 earth observing-1 introduction and some eo-1 lessons learned nro presentation...

1

August 19, 2003Earth Observing-1

Introduction and SomeEO-1 Lessons Learned

NRO Presentation

August 18, 2003

Dan MandlEO-1 Mission Director

2


Agenda

Overview of technology validation missions

Overview of EO-1 Mission

Mission phases

Continuous improvement efforts

Some lessons learned

3


Technology Validation Missions

A mission designed to flight validate new technologies to lower the cost or improve the performance of a future mission

At NASA, the future missions are all science missions but this is not a requirement for the process

The NASA New Millennium Program (NMP) is responsible for the flight validation of new technologies relevant to future science missions in both the Office of Space Science and the Office of Earth Science

Within the NMP, each technology has a Validation Plan consisting of two components:

– Technical Validation – technologists and engineers proving the technology works in space as advertised

– Science Validation– scientists proving the technology is capable of doing the science for which it is intended

4


Impact on21st Century

Science Missions

Break-throughNature ofTechnology

ExcessiveRisk to theFirst User

NMP

Technology Validation Missions

5


Mission Overview

Validate revolutionary technologies contributing to the reduction of cost and increased capabilities for future land imaging missions

Revolutionary land imaging instruments on EO-1

– Hyperion

– Advanced Land Imager (ALI)

– Atmospheric Corrector (AC)

Revolutionary Spacecraft technologies on EO-1

– X Band Phased Array Antenna (XPAA)

– Pulse Plasma Thruster (PPT)

– Light Weight Flexible Solar Array (LFSA)

More on website: eo1.gsfc.nasa.gov

– Carbon-Carbon Radiator (CCR)

– Enhanced Formation Flying (EFF)

Mission Overview

6


EO-1 Mission Phases After base mission, three more mission phases evolved as depicted in

chart below

Sensor Web/Testbed phase is active now

Virtual observatory phase is the phase in which as much mission autonomy as possible will be implemented to reduce the cost as much as possible of running the EO-1 mission

– Includes semi-autonomous tasking of EO-1

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q42000 2001 2002

Baseline Mission Extended Mission

Phase 3 “Public Access”

“Accelerated Mission”

Launch

Q1 Q2 Q32004

Phase 1Phase 2

“Sensor Web/Test-Bed”

2003

Phase 4

“Virtual Observatory”

7


Sorting Success Criteria for EO-1 Pre-Launch

COMPLETELY SUCCESSFUL

MISSION(12 MOS)

SUCCESSFULMISSION(4-9 MOS)

MINIMALMISSION(3-4 MOS)

Advanced Land Imager (I)

Wide-band Advanced Recorder/Processor (ST)

Hyperion (III)

Atmospheric Corrector (III)

X-Band Phased Array Antenna (II)

Global Positioning System (ST)

Enhanced Formation Flying (III)

Carbon-Carbon Radiator (III)

Lightweight Flexible Solar Array (III)

Pulse Plasma Thruster (III)

Precision Pointing (ST)

LO

W

TECHNOLOGIES TO BE VALIDATED

PR

IOR

ITY

OR

DE

RH

IGH

8


Determining EO-1 S/C Total Reliability Over Mission Life

EO-1 Category 1 Reliability Curve

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0 3 6 9 12

Mission Life <mo>

Re

lia

bil

ity

9


How S/C Reliability Was Determined

= Has Consequence Category 1 from FMEA

Attitude ControlSubsystem

(ACS)

Electrical PowerSubsystem

(EPS)

CommunicationsSubsystem (CS)

Command & DataHandling

Subsystem(C&DHS)

Reaction ControlSubsystem (RCS)

ALIWARP

0.9490 0.9679 0.9535 0.9638

0.8960 0.9846

Reliability @ 1 year = 0.7447Failure Likelihood = 0.2553

Has Redundancy

0.9999

10


Mission Redesign as a Result of Success Criteria and Reliability Assessment

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4 DCE / Day

Months After Launch

Probability

8 / Day

Completely Successful Mission

Successful Mission

Minimal Mission

Move DCE’s Up In Time

11


Budget Realignment to Support Redesigned Accelerated Mission

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

$K

N D J F M A M J J A S O

Month

Accelerated Mission

Science Validation Facility

Normal Ops

$600K

12


Continuous Improvement Efforts to Lower Imaging Costs

E D C X - B a n d G r o u n d S t a t i o n O p e r a t i o n a l

0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0M o n t h s S i n c e L a u n c h

Cost

($)

N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J AL a u n c h

A d d e d H o b a r t a n d G o d d a r d G r o u n d S t a t i o n s

A u t o m a t e d P l a n n i n g , S c h e d u l i n g , a n d S c e n e T r a c k i n g

F

D e v e l o p e d C a p a b i l i t y f o r T w o D C E s / O r b i t

A d d e d G r o u n d - B a s e d C l o u d C o v e r P r e d i c t i o n s

Q u i c k T u r n a r o u n d S c e n e R e q u e s t & E x p e d i t e d D a t a D e l i v e r y

A u t o m a t e d C o n t r o l C e n t e r O p s

S c h e d u l i n g & D a t a P r o c e s s i n g M o v e d t o E R O S D a t a C e n t e r

S t r e a m l i n e d I m a g e S e q u e n c i n g

M

A d d e d “ T w o P a t h A w a y ” P o i n t i n g C a p a b i l i t y

E D C X - B a n d G r o u n d S t a t i o n O p e r a t i o n a l

0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0


Cost

($)




F







M


0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0


Cost

($)




F







0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0


Cost

($)




F







M


M


13


Testing Sensor Web Concepts Using EO-1 as a Testbed

On-board Processing

End-to-End Communications

Autonomous Coordination

Operational Testbed

On-board CloudCover Detection Validation

Hyperspectral Compression WG

On-board data mining On-board intelligent

image compression Working group

Smart Antenna Ground phased array Cell tower com to sat

Livingstone On-board Model Based Diag Tool

Autonomous anomaly diagnosis and recommendations

Autonomous Science Experiment(ASE)

Migration of ST6 onto EO-1

SensorWeb Testbed Test SensorWeb

concepts on ground

EO-1, Terra, Aqua SensorWeb Demo 1 & 2

Uses MODIS inst center to detect volcanoes

Uses ASE to coord image collect autonomously

Intelligent Distributed Spacecraft Technology Testbed

EO-1/ Gnd Sensor SensorWeb Sensors in Huntington

Botanical Garden trigger EO-1 image

Preliminary EO-1 Autonomy Experiment On-board planning On-board feature detection Dynamic SW Bus

Funded by ESTO Funded by NMP Funded by RASC Proposed activity

14


Sample Science Goal Monitor User page —Experiment for Virtual Observatory Front End

15


Lessons Learned (1 of 4)

When compared to small science missions, EO-1 was inherently risky since it is a Technology Validation mission due to:

– Maturing the technologies

– Architectural risks

– Developing the technologies

– Flight-validating the technologies

– Infusing the technologies

Mitigating these risks required:

– Greater reserves of time and money

– More capable people throughout the Project

– Robust Risk Management from the beginning

– Strong System Engineering is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL in orchestrating a successful Technology Validation mission

– Ready and repeated access to the best engineering talent is required – a “deep bench” of engineering talent

16



More specific Lessons Learned from the NMP/EO-1 mission:

– Insist on thorough documentation of all vendor (subcontractor) tests.

– Document the “as-built” characteristics of each part.

– Provide a complete photo documentation of the instrument prior to delivery, with close-ups of all critical items.

– Comparison of several independent calibration techniques has proved to be extremely valuable both in ground and on-orbit measurements.

– Calibration of each detector of a large focal plane is a manageable job but requires thorough preparation of test plans, test instrumentation and associated software to process the resulting large volume of data.

17



Pre-Launch – Design for flexibility

– Build organization for flexibility

– Requirements change – inflexibility costs additional money in long run

– Perform reliability assessment using FMEA and fault trees

– Design S/C with selective redundancy based on risk/reliability assessment

– Overstaff operations to provide risk buffer

– Easier to de-staff than to gain expertise quickly

– FOT used to augment I&T and as workarounds to other problems found on S/C

– Use contractual mechanisms that allow flexibility in obtaining additional staff as needs arise – there is always turnover

– Facilities should be expandable and changeable to the degree possible to accommodate requirements changes

18


Lessons Leaned (4 of 4)

Pre-Launch & Post-Launch – Design for flexibility

– Build Continuous Improvement Program from day one

– Build capability in mission for progressive autonomy

– Many mission lessons learned occur shortly before launch and during early operations

– Need capability to install autonomy as operations staff learns how mission needs to run

1 august 19, 2003 earth observing-1 introduction and some eo-1 lessons learned nro presentation...

Documents