69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

IAC-18.D1.4A.8

Model-Based Concept Framework for Suborbital Human Spaceflight Missions

Yaroslav Menshenina, Edward Crawleyb a Skoltech Space Center, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, 3 Nobelya str., Moscow, Russia 121205, [email protected] b Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue 33- 409, Cambridge, MA, USA 02139, [email protected]

Abstract Projects of the New Space economy such as SpaceShipTwo and New Shepard are on their way to shifting the paradigms in space tourism and transportation. Being privately financed, they are also changing the way in which highly complex and formerly government-financed systems are now being developed. Looking to the future, we can envision humanity moving to space, an opportunity that will be available to many more of us as a result of these new paradigms. One of the core issues we encounter when we start the development of complex systems such as the suborbital transportation and space tourism systems is: what are the concepts available and how can these concepts be represented using strictly defined ontology and model semantics? In this work we present a model-based concept framework that aims to address this issue. First a concept framework methodology is presented, after which we demonstrate its applicability to suborbital human spaceflight missions – SpaceShipTwo and New Shepard. The analytical conceptual difference between these concepts is demonstrated. The proposed framework includes: the information that characterizes stakeholders and their needs; the solution-neutral environment (the problem statement) in which we formulate the functional intent; the solution-specific environment (solution statement) in which we see the possible solutions; the decomposition of such solution into internal elements and functions; and the concept of operations. Each one of these entries of the concept framework has a counterpart represented in conceptual modeling languages, such as Object-Process Methodology (OPM) or the System Modeling Language (SysML). Such a model- based concept framework encodes the core information required to define a suborbital tourism concept and represent it in a digital environment. We believe this will become a powerful tool to support the makers of architectural decisions that lead to concept and eventually to architecture. Keywords: concept, conceptual design, model-based system engineering, suborbital systems, space tourism

1. Introduction create not only the opportunity for a space tourism Model-based conceptual design (MBCD) is the market, but also for such promising areas as point-to- “application of Model-Based Systems Engineering point transportation. According to the estimates of (MBSE) to the exploratory research and concept stages Peeters [6] and the International Space University [7], of the generic lifecycle” [1]. Our work is motivated by suborbital transportation would reduce the time spent on the desire to demonstrate how a model-based concept New York - Tokyo route from the current 13 hours on a framework, developed based on system architecture commercial airplane to 90 minutes on a suborbital principles [2], enables the representation of conceptual vehicle. This would enable to attract those travelers who design information. This would create an opportunity to are more focusing on time savings, rather than ticket explore the alternative concepts for suborbital human price. spaceflight missions, keeping track of conceptual The utility of the proposed concept framework is difference among competing options. The objective of that if the system engineer adopts it, he or she will have this paper is to develop and present a unified concept a tool that digitally supports the design process. Another framework, and demonstrate that when applied to utility is that such a framework facilitates the analysis of alternative suborbital concepts it contains information complex systems, as well as synthesis of the systems about differences in alternative suborbital concepts, under development. such as Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo [3] and Blue On April 29, 2018 the Blue Origin company Origin’s New Shepard [4]. announced that its New Shepard’s crew capsule reached Since the creation of Ansari X Prize contest [5] a new an apogee of 107 km - the targeted altitude for the market of suborbital tourism appeared on the map of operations. On July 26, 2018 Virgin Galactic’s VSS space activities. Over the last two decades the dozens of Unity (SpaceShipTwo) reached Mach 2.4 arriving at an projects were initiated, aiming at making suborbital apogee of 51 km. These accomplishments demonstrate a spaceflight systems reliable and enjoyable for space continuing competition in the suborbital space tourism travelers. Indeed, the suborbital spaceflight systems sector, and the clear path to sustainable market.

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 1 of 11 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and Figure 1 released to the IAF to publish in all forms. Meanwhile, when we see a new suborbital space one. We will use the OPM notation throughout this venture, or analyze an existing one, we observe a lack of paper. common representation of conceptual information about the system. The information on each system is presented Solution-neutral Solution-specific environment environment differently, depending on previous experience of system engineers of the specific project. This identifies a 3 research opportunity: to create a more rigorous and 8 digitally supported approach to the conceptual design phase. Thus, the specific objective of this paper is to 6 demonstrate a model-based concept framework which supports conceptual design phase by encoding the 11 conceptual information about multiple alternatives. This will be applied to suborbital space tourism concepts using a strictly defined ontology and model semantics. 13 This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we 15 discuss the system architecture methods that are used in the paper. Section 3 demonstrates unified framework that contains the entries of concept framework. In Fig. 1. Concept as a specific operand, process and form, section 4 we apply the proposed framework to two specialized from solution-neutral information. Note that suborbital projects, namely, Virgin Galactic’s the numbers correspond to those in Figure 2. The SpaceShipTwo and Blue Origin’s New Shepard. We notation is that of Object-Process Methodology (OPM) discuss the conclusions and the limitations of our work in section 5. 3. Unified concept framework The unified concept framework is presented in 2. System architecture methods Figure 2, in which the entries of the framework are In our paper we are applying the system architecture outlined. These 28 entries are spread among 5 assertions methods at the early stages of design process – and marked by different colors in order to facilitate their conceptual design [2]. The central idea is to define identification with an assertion. For example, we can “concept” as the mapping of form to function. see that the first assertion (on stakeholder) contains two “Conceptual design” is considered the movement from entries in the concept framework: the stakeholders and the solution-neutral to the solution-specific environment their need. By stakeholders we imply “any group or (see Figures 1 and 2) [8]. The system architecture individual who can affect or is affected by the approaches can be effectively encoded into the model- achievement of the organization’s objectives” [11]. The based environment, such as Object-Process second assertion (on solution-neutral environment) has Methodology (OPM) [9] or SysML [10]. We chose five entries, numbered from 3 to 7, and is dedicated to OPM, as it is representing the system graphically in a the environment in which the solutions are not known smaller number of diagrams compared to SysML. In our [12, 13]. The main goal of this part of framework is to paper we apply the proposed concept framework to formulate the problem statement based on stakeholders’ suborbital human spaceflight missions, representing need. Figure 2 them in a model-based environment. Conceptual design In Figure 1 the three important entities of any system Stakeholders Solution-specific environment Integrated concept Solution-neutral environment (Solution statement) are identified. Any system can be described by means of (Problem statement) Concept of Operations an operand, process, and form. The process is the 1 Stakeholders activity that changes the state of the operand. The form 2 Need is an instrument that is used to perform the function 3 Solution-neutral operand (SNO) 8 Solution-specific operand (SSO) 17 Internal Operands (IO) 4 SNO value attribute 9 SSO value attribute 18 IO value attribute (operand plus process). The details of these entries, 5 SNO other attribute 10 SSO other attribute 19 IO other attribute among other entries of the concept framework are 6 Solution-neutral process (SNP) 11 Solution-specific process (SSP) 20 Internal Processes (IP) presented in Figure 2 and discussed in the next section. 7 SNP attribute 12 SSP attribute 21 IP attribute 13 Generic Form 22 Internal Elements of Form (IEoF) In our paper we use the OPM notation. According to 14 Generic Form attribute 23 IEoF attribute this modelling language, the operands and elements of 15 Specific Form 24 Structure 16 Specific Form attribute 25 Interactions form are objects represented by rectangles, while the 26 Concept of Operations processes are represented by ovals. The specialization 27 Operator 28 Context link is denoted by white triangle, and the decomposition link is denoted by black triangle. Attributes are Fig. 2. Table view of the unified concept framework of indicated by two triangles, a black one inside the white 28 entries organized around five main assertions

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 2 of 11 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

The third assertion (on solution-specific Once we have decided on the first stakeholder environment) has nine entries, from 8 to 16, and is entries of the concept framework, we may proceed with commonly known as the conceptual design [14, 15]. identification of solution-neutral environment’s entries. The main purpose of this part of the concept framework In the solution-neutral we should stay as abstract as is to conceptualize the possible solution, or the possible in order to allow for a broad space of alternative solutions by specializing the abstract alternatives and not to suggest any aspect of the information to a more concrete set of information. solution. Thus, “entertaining” (entry 6) “individuals” The fourth assertion is dedicated to the integrated (entry 3) is an appropriate solution-neutral’s function concept and is containing nine entries, from 17 to 25. that might lead to space tourism concepts. At this level By decomposing the solution’s form into internal of concept development the system architect is allowed elements, the system architect can identify the internal to state the solutionFigure 4 -neutral operand’s value attribute functions fulfilled by such internal elements of form. (such as “enjoyment level”) and other attributes (such as Structure and interactions (entries 24 and 25) inform the “number”); and solution-neutral process’ attribute (such relationships among the internal elements of forms in as “safely”). The full solution-neutral problem statement both physical and functional domain [16]. The fifth is to “increase the enjoyment level (i.e. entertain) of assertion deals with the concept of operations, having individuals, safely.” (see Figure 4). three entries from 26 to 28. This information encompasses the concept of operations (entry 26), the Solution-neutral environment operator (entry 27), and the context (entry 28) under (Problem statement) which the system is intended to operate [17]. It is the hypothesis of our work that having the 3 Solution-neutral operand (SNO) Individuals detailed information about each one of the entries of 4 SNO value attribute Enjoyment level Figure 2 the system architect captures the core essence of the concept. This information can be effectively 5 SNO other attribute Number represented by means of the model-based approaches, 6 Solution-neutral process (SNP) Entertaining and enables the development of systems at the 7 SNP attribute Safely conceptual stage in engineering environments, such as concurrent engineering design environment [18]. Fig. 4. The second assertion of the Unified concept framework in table view 4. Model-based concepts for Virgin Galactic and Conceptual design is the movement from solution- Blue Origin systems Applying our methodology to suborbital spaceflight neutral to solution-specific environment. In other words, systems, we start with the first entries of the concept conceptual design is the reasoning about how to framework: stakeholders and their needs (entries 1 and 2 specialize the operand and process of the second of Figure 2). We define the stakeholders as the assertion (see Figure 2) to the more specific ones in the “tourists”, who have a need “have fun” (see Figure 3). third assertion. The specialized operand/process are As we discussed earlier, the suborbital systems might more concrete. As such, the specialized operand of also serve as a point-Figure 3A, 3B to-point transportation system [6], solution-neutral operand “individuals” would be [7]. In this case the stakeholders would be the “passengers”; while the specialized process of solution- “travelers”, who would have the need to “get neutral process “entertaining” would be “flying”. Note somewhere”. We will use the current tourism need as that the attributes are inherited: if the solution-neutral operand/process has had some attribute, it is inherited the reference. Figure 3A, 3B by the solution-specific operand/process. So flying must

1 be “safe.” Another major difference between the Stakeholders Tourists solution-neutral and solution-specific environments is 1 Stakeholders Tourists the presence of form, the instrument that executes the Need 2 specific function “flying passengers”. The generic form 2 Have fun Have fun (entry 13) is “Suborbital vehicle”, and the specific form a (entry 15) is either “Virgin Galactic system” or “Blue 1 th Stakeholders Tourists Origin system”. In other words, at the 15 entry of the concept framework we start distinguishing the 1 Stakeholders Tourists alternative solutions for the same solution-neutral and Need 2 2 Have fun Have fun solution-specific functions that aim to fulfill the needs of stakeholders. This information is summarized in b Figure 5 (table view) and Figure 6 (OPM view). Fig. 3. The first assertion of the Unified concept framework: table view (a) and OPM view (b)

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 3 of 11 Figure 5

69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

Solution-specific environment 17A) - see Figure 7(a). SpaceShipTwo’s internal (Solution statement) process is “flying” (entry 20B), and internal operand is “passengers” (entry 17B) – see right hand side of Figure 8 Solution-specific operand (SSO) Passengers 7(a). The attributes of the internal 9 SSO value attribute Enjoyment level elements/processes/operands are shown in both 10 SSO other attribute Number representations of the first level decomposition – table 11 Solution-specific process (SSP) Flying in Figure 7(a) and OPM in Figure 7(b). Note that sometimes the same object might be both operand and SSP attribute Safely 12 instrument, as it is in case of SpaceShipTwo. In one 13 Generic Form Suborbital vehicle case the SpaceShipTwo is an operand, as it is in column 14 Generic Form attribute Cost A of Figure 7(a), in another case – an instrument, as it is 15 Specific Form Virgin Galactic/Blue Origin in column B of Figure 7(a). This information is also 16 Specific Form attribute Cost encoded in FigureFigure 7A 7(b), in which the block Fig. 5. The third assertionFigure 6 of the Unified concept “SpaceShipTwo” has both indications - 17A, 22B. framework in a table view Integrated concept 8 First level decomposition 3 Individuals Passengers A: WhiteKnightTwo B: SpaceShipTwo 4 Enjoyment 9 Enjoyment level level 17 SpaceShipTwo Passengers 5 10 Number Number 18 Energy Enjoyment level 6 11 19 Mass Number Entertaining Flying 20 Carrying Flying 12 7 21 Safely Safely Safely Safely 22 WhiteKnightTwo SpaceShipTwo 13 Suborbital vehicle 23 Cost Cost 14 24 See diagram (Figure 8) See diagram (Figure 8) Cost 25 See diagram (Figure 8) See diagram (Figure 8) 15 Virgin Galactic Figure 7B / Blue Origin a

16 17B Cost Passengers 18B Enjoyment level 19B Fig. 6. The third assertion of the Unified concept Number framework in an OPM view 20A 20B

21A Carrying Flying 21B In our work we are focusing on the model-based Safely Safely representation of the integrated concept using the 15 Virgin Galactic unified framework (Figure 2). This allows us to system visualize two concepts on consistent levels of 22A 17A WhiteKnightTwo SpaceShipTwo 22B granularity [19], and retrospectively to analytically 18A 23A Energy Cost measure the conceptual difference between the concepts 19A Mass [20]. 23B Cost The integrated concepts for Virgin Galactic system b and Blue Origin system projects at the first level Fig. 7. The integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the decomposition are shown in Figures 7 to 10. At this first level decomposition for Virgin Galactic system in a level of decomposition the system engineer can identify table view (a) and in an OPM view (b). The entries' the internal elements of form (entry 22) that serve as the names are described in Figure 2 instruments for corresponding internal processes (entry 20) acting on internal operands (entry 17). The information about structure (entry 24) and The Figure 7 demonstrates the decomposition of the interactions (entry 25) at the first level decomposition is specific form “Virgin Galactic system” (entry 15) into summarized in Figure 8. The structure is the the internal elements of form (entry 22) physical/logical relationship of elements to each other. “WhiteKnightTwo” and “SpaceShipTwo”, each one of The interactions have a dynamic nature as something is which perform its own function. For example, shared or exchanged during operations. WhiteKnightTwo’s internal process is “carrying” (entry 20A), and internal operand is “SpaceShipTwo” (entry

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 4 of 11 Figure 8A, 8B

Attached below 24A, 24B WhiteKnightTwo SpaceShipTwo th Figure 10A, 10B 69 International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018Figure 8A, 8B by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

Attached The information about structureAttached (entry 24) and below above 24A, 24B WhiteKnightTwo SpaceShipTwo interactions (entryPropulsion 25) at the first level decomposition is 24C, 24D Capsule a summarized inFigure 10A, 10B Figuremodule 10. From this Figure we can see that Capsule is “attached above” the Propulsion module. Transfers The Propulsion module “transfers force” to Capsule. force 25A, 25B WhiteKnightTwo SpaceShipTwo Attached b Propulsion above Capsule Fig. 8. The structure (a) and interactions (b) (fourth Entry 25: Interactions for the first level of decomposition 24C, 24D module assertion) at the first level decomposition for Virgin Transfers a Galactic systemforce 25A, 25B WhiteKnightTwo SpaceShipTwo Transfers From Figure 8 we can see that SpaceShipTwo is Propulsion force “attached below” of WhiteKnightTwo. The Capsule 25C, 25D module WhiteKnightTwo “transfers force” to SpaceShipTwo. Entry 25: Interactions for the first level of decomposition In Figure 9 we capture the first level decomposition b of the specific form “Blue Origin system” (entry 15) Fig. 10. The structure (a) and interactions (b) (fourth into the internal elements of form (entry 22) “Propulsion assertion) at the first level decomposition for Blue module” and “Capsule”. From both of these Figures we Origin systemTransfers Propulsion force see that the internal elements of form “propulsion Capsule module” (entry 22C) and “capsule” (entry 22D) perform 25C, 25D From Figures module 7(b) and 9(b) we may see that the internal functions “carrying capsule” (entries 20C conceptually the Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin plus 17C) and “flying passengers” (entries 20D plus concepts are identical at the first level of decomposition 17D), correspondingly.Figure 9A for the entries 17 to 23 of the concept framework, so as the system designers we have to go to the next level of Integrated concept decomposition to start distingushing the difference First level decomposition between these concepts. Concerning the entries 24 (structure) and 25 (interactions) the concepts are C: Propulsion module D: Capsule different: for instance, SpaceShipTwo “attached below” 17 Capsule Passengers WhiteKnightTwo (see Figure 8), while Capsule 18 Energy Enjoyment level “attached above” Propulsion module (see Figure 10). 19 Mass Number One of the benefits of the system architecture 20 Carrying Flying principles is that they remain the same at all levels of 21 Safely Safely decomposition [21]. From a careful examination of the 22 Propulsion module Capsule Figures 7(a) and 9(a) we may notice that the internal 23 Cost Cost elements of form (entries 22A, 22B), namely, 24 See diagram (Figure 10) See diagram (Figure 10) “WhiteKnightTwo” and “SpaceShipTwo” for Virgin Galactic system, and “Propulsion module” and 25 See diagram (Figure 10) See diagram (Figure 10) Figure 9B a “Capsule” (entries 22C, 22D) for Blue Origin system can be further decomposed into their own internal

17D elements, processes, and operands. Passengers 18D Enjoyment level Consider the decomposition of the Virgin Galactic’s 19D Number internal elements of form “WhiteKnightTwo” and 20C 20D “SpaceShipTwo” (see Figure 11) into the second level 21C Carrying Flying decomposition. If we consider the example of 21D Safely Safely WhiteKnightTwo in details - see Figure 11(a), we will see that this internal element of form is further 15 Blue Origin system decomposed into five internal elements: landing gear 22C Propulsion 17C Capsule module 22D (entry 22A1), wings (entry 22A2), aerodynamic 18C 23C Energy surfaces (entry 22A3), jet engine (entry 22A4), and Cost 19C Mass pilots (entry 22A5). Each one of these forms perform its 23D Cost own internal function, or internal functions: “launching b WhiteKnightTwo”, “lifting WhiteKnightTwo”, “guiding Fig. 9. The integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the WhiteKnightTwo”, “increasing (the energy of) first level decomposition for Blue Origin system in a WhiteKnightTwo”, “increasing (the energy of) table view (a) and in an OPM view (b). The entries' SpaceShipTwo”, “landing WhiteKnightTwo”, “carrying names are described in Figure 2

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 5 of 11 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms. Figure 11B Integrated concept SpaceShipTwo”, correspondingly. Note two important Second level decomposition observations: landing gear performs two internal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 17 SS2 SS2 SS2 SS2 SS2 SS2 SS2 Passengers functions; and the instrument of decreasing the 18 Energy Energy WhiteKnightTwo’s energy is its airframe (WK2 itself). 19 20 Separating Lifting Guiding Guiding Increasing Decreasing Landing Flying If we consider the example of SpaceShipTwo in Horizontally, Horizontally, 21 At altitude On ground details - see Figure 11(b), we will notice that this Aerodynamic Rocket Landing 22 WK2 Wings Thrusters SS2 Pilots, SS2 internal element of form is further decomposed into six surfaces engine gear 23 See See See See See internal elements: wings (entry 22B1), aerodynamic See diagram See diagram See diagram 24 diagram diagram diagram diagram diagram (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) surfaces (entry 22B2), thrusters (entry 22B3), rocket (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) See See See See See See diagram See diagram See diagram 25 diagram diagram diagram diagram diagram engine (entry 22B4), landing gear (entry 22B5), and (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) pilots (entry 22B6). The performing functions are: (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) “lifting SpaceShipTwo”, “guiding SpaceShipTwo”, b “guiding SpaceShipTwo”, “increasing (the energy of) Fig. 11. The integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the SpaceShipTwo”, “decreasing (the energy of) second level decomposition for Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo”, “landing SpaceShipTwo”, and “flying “WhiteKnightTwo” (a) and “SpaceShipTwo” (b). The passengers”, respectively. Note that the instrument of entries' names are described in Figure 2

“separating SpaceShipTwoFigure 11A ” is WhiteKnightTwo. The OPM representation of the same information as Integrated concept it is indicated in Figures 11(a) and 11(b) is presented in Second level decomposition Figure 12. We may see that the information encoded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 17 WK2 WK2 WK2 WK2 SS2 WK2 WK2 SS2 into the OPM view is much more compact and readable, 18 Energy Energy Energy comparing to the table format. Note that we do not 19 20 Launching Lifting Guiding Increasing Increasing Decreasing Landing Carrying include the information about all inherited attributes of Horizontally, Horizontally, 21 On ground On ground the internal operands, internal processes, and internal Landing Aerodynamic Pilots, 22 Wings Jet engine Jet engine WK2 Landing gear elements of form, yet there is the information about type gear surfaces WK2 23 of launch and landing with corresponding attributes. See See See See See See diagram See diagram See diagram 24 diagram diagram diagram diagram diagram Thus, WhiteKnightTwo together with SpaceShipTwo (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) (Figure 13) launches horizontally from ground and lands See See See See See See diagram See diagram See diagram 25 diagram diagram diagram diagram diagram (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) horizontally on ground; while SpaceShipTwo launches (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) (Figure 14) a horizontally at altitude, and lands horizontally on ground.

17B Passengers

22A1 20A 20A8 21B0 20B 20B8 Landing Carrying 21A1 Horizontally Flying gear 20A1 20B0 22B1 Horizontally 21B0 22A2 Launching 21A1 Separating Wings At altitude 20B1 Wings 20A2 On ground 22B2 Lifting 22A3 Lifting Aerodynamic Aerodynamic 20A3 20B2 20B3 surfaces surfaces Guiding Guiding 22B3 22A4 20A4 20A5 20B4 Thrusters Jet engine Increasing Increasing 22B4 22A5 20A6 21B6 20B5 Rocket Pilots Decreasing Horizontally Decreasing 21A7 engine 20A7 21B6 20B6 Horizontally 22B5 Landing On ground Landing 21A7 Landing On ground gear Virgin Galactic 22B6 15 system 22A Pilots WhiteKnightTwo SpaceShipTwo 18A4 18B5 17A, 22B Energy Energy

Fig. 12. OPM representation of the integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the second level decomposition for Virgin Galactic’s “SpaceShipTwo” and “WhiteKnightTwo”

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 6 of 11 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

The structure and interactions among the second the aerodynamic surfaces is “guiding propulsion level elements of form (entries 24 and 25, respectively) module”; the internal function of landing gear is are presented in Figures 13 and 14, respectively. This “landing Propulsion module”. Note that the instrument information represents the second level decomposition. of “carrying Capsule” is Propulsion module itself. For instance, from the Figure 13 we can see that the The internal elements of form “Capsule” - see physical connection between jet engine and wings is Figure 15(b) - is further decomposed into four internal that the jet engine is “attached below” of wings. The elements: thrusters (entry 22D1), aerodynamic aerodynamic surfaces “attached at rear” of decelerators (entry 22D2), parachute (entry 22D3), and WhiteKnightTwo. The pilots are “within” the pilot (entry 22D4). Their internal functions are “guiding WhiteKnightTwo, and so on. capsule”, “decreasing (the energy of) capsule”, “landing capsule” and “flying passengers”, respectively. Note Figures Attached Attached 22B5 that the instrument of separating capsule is propulsion 22A1 Landing below below Landing 13, 14 gear gear module, and that the instrument of increasing the energy 22A5 22B4 22B6 Within Rocket Embedded Within of capsule is rocket engine of propulsion module. Pilots engine Pilots Figure 15A

Attached 22B1 Integrated concept 22A2 Attached below Attached Second level decomposition Wings WK2 SS2 Wings 17A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22B3 22A 22B Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Propulsion Attached Attached at Embedded 17 Capsule Capsule Thrusters module module module module module below rear 22B2 18 Energy Energy Energy 22A4 22A3 Jet Aerodynamic Attached Aerodynamic 19 Engine surfaces surfaces 20 Launching Guiding Increasing Increasing Decreasing Landing Carrying Attached Attached 22B5 Vertically, Figures Vertically, 22A1 below 21 From Landing below Landing On ground Fig. 13. OPM representationProvide launch/ ofProvide launch/ the integrated22B5 concept ground 13, 14 gear 22B4 gear 22A5 22A1 Landing landing support Landing support Landing 22B6 Rocket (fourth assertion)Within at theRocket secondEmbedded level decomposition’sWithin Rocket Aerodynamic Rocket Rocket Rocket engine, Propulsion gear Provides gear Pilots 22 22A5 Pilots 22B4 engine 22B6 engine surfaces engine engine engine Landing module gear structureProvide input informationRocket forthrust the VirginProvide input Galactic’s Pilots Attached 22B1 Pilots 23 Attached engine Attached Embedded 22A2 “SpaceShipTwo” andbelow “WhiteKnightTwo” See See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram Wings WK2 Transfers SS2 Wings 22B1 24 diagram 17A (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) Provide lift Provide lift (Figure 17) 22A2 22A force 22B 22B3 Attached Wings Attached at WK2 SS2 Embedded Wings See 17A See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram Thrusters 25 diagram Frombelow the Figurerear 14 22A we may22B notice that, for example,22B3 (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) Provides Provide attitude Control attitude 22B2 (Figure 18) 22A4 22A3 Thrusters pilotsthrust “provideJet control forces Aerodynamic input” to WhiteKnightTwo;Attached Aerodynamic while wings Figure 15B Control a Engine surfaces 22A3 22B2 surfaces 22A4 attitude “provideJet lift” toAerodynamic SpaceShipTwo. Aerodynamic Integrated concept Second level decomposition Engine surfaces surfaces Provide launch/ Provide launch/ 22B5 1 2 3 4 5 6 22A1 Landing landing support Landing support Landing 17 Capsule Capsule Capsule Capsule Capsule Passengers gear Provides gear 22A5 22B4 22B6 18 Energy Energy Provide input Rocket thrust Provide input Pilots 19 Pilots engine 20 Separating Increasing Guiding Decreasing Landing Flying Transfers 22B1 Vertically, Vertically, Provide lift 21 22A2 force Provide lift At altitude On ground Wings WK2 SS2 Wings 17A Propulsion Aerodynamic 22 Rocket engine Thrusters Parachute Pilot, Capsule 22A 22B 22B3 module decelerators Provides Provide attitude Control attitude Thrusters 23 thrust control forces See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram Control 22B2 24 22A3 (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) (Figure 17) 22A4 Jet attitude Aerodynamic Aerodynamic See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram See diagram Engine 25 surfaces surfaces (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) (Figure 18) b Fig. 14. OPM representation of the integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the second level decomposition’s Fig. 15. The integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the interactions information for the Virgin Galactic’s second level decomposition for Blue Origin’s “Propulsion module” (a) and “Capsule” (b). The entries' “SpaceShipTwo” and “WhiteKnightTwo” names are described in Figure 2

Consider the decomposition of the Blue Origin’s In Figure 16 we demonstrate the OPM representation of internal elements of form “Propulsion module” and the same information as it is indicated in Figures 15(a) “Capsule” (see Figure 15) into the second level and 15(b). Similarly to the Virgin Galactic case, we do decomposition. If we consider the example of not include the information about the inherited internal Propulsion module in details - see Figure 15(a), we will operand’s, internal processes’, and internal elements of see that this internal element of form is further form’s attributes, yet there is the information about type decomposed into three internal elements: rocket engine of launch and landing with corresponding attributes. (entry 22C1), aerodynamic surfaces (entry 22C2), and landing gear (entry 22C3). The rocket engine performs Thus, Propulsion module together with Capsule launches vertically from the ground and lands vertically the number of internal functions: “launching Propulsion on the ground; while Capsule separates at altitude and module”, “increasing (the energy of) Propulsion lands vertically on the ground. Such representation module”, “increasing (the energy of) Capsule”, captures the difference between Virgin Galactic’s and “decreasing (the energy of) Propulsion module”, and Blue Origin’s projects using the conceptual modeling “landing Propulsion module”; the internal function of language.

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 7 of 11 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

17D Passengers 21D1 20C Vertically 20D 20C7 21D1 20D6 Carrying 21C1 At altitude Flying 20C1 20D1 Vertically Separating Launching 21C1 20C4 20D2 22C1 20C2 From ground 22D1 Increasing Rocket Guiding Thrusters engine 20C3 20D3 22D2 22C2 21D5 Guiding Aerodynamic Aerodynamic Increasing decelerators Vertically 20D4 surfaces 20C5 22D3 21D5 22C3 Decreasing Decreasing Parachute 21C6 On ground Landing 20C6 20D5 Vertically gear 22D4 Landing Landing 21C6 Pilot On ground

15 Blue Origin system

Figures 22C3 Propulsion module Attached at Capsule 22D3 22D4 bottom Landing 17C Parachute Pilot 22C 22C1 gear 17, 18 Embedded 22D Rocket 18C4 Energy engine Energy 18D2 Embedded Fig. 16. OPM representation of the integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the second level decomposition for Blue 22C Propulsion Attached Within Origin’s “Propulsion module” and “Capsule” Capsule module 17C, 22D 22C2 22D1 Aerodynamic Attached Embedded Thrusters The structure and interactions for the second level physicalsurfaces and functional22D2 relationships among the Aerodynamic Embedded elements of form (entries 24 and 25, respectively) are elements. decelerators presented in Figures 17 and 18, respectively. This 22C1 Provides thrust Rocket 22D3 information represents the second level decomposition. Control attitude 22D4 engine Provide Parachute Pilot For example, Figure 17 informs us that for New landing 22C3 support Shepard thrusters “embedded” into capsule; while Landing Provide gear landing capsule is “attached” to propulsion module; and rocket support Provides 22C thrust Propulsion Transfers force Provides input engine is “embedded” into the propulsion module. Capsule module 17C, 22D 22C2 22D1 Controls attitude Control attitude Figures Aerodynamic 22C3 Thrusters Attached at 22D3 22D4 surfaces bottom 22D2 Control Landing Parachute Pilot energy 22C1 gear Aerodynamic decelerators 17, 18 Embedded Rocket engine Embedded Fig. 18. OPM representation of the integrated concept (fourth assertion) at the second level decomposition’s 22C Propulsion Attached Within Capsule interactions information for the Blue Origin’s module 17C, 22D 22C2 22D1 “Propulsion module” and “Capsule” Aerodynamic Attached Embedded Thrusters surfaces 22D2 Aerodynamic Embedded Comparing the Figures 12 and 16 we may notice the decelerators conceptual difference between both concepts. It is 22C1 Fig. 17. OPM representationProvides thrust of the integrated concept Rocket 22D3 important to note that this difference appears at the Control attitude 22D4 (fourthengine assertion) at the second level decomposition’s Provide Parachute Pilot second level of the decomposition. From this figures we structure informationlanding 22C3 for the Blue Origin’s “Propulsion support Landing Provide may see not only the different internal elements that module”gear and “Capsule” landing perform the same internal functions at the second level support Provides 22C decomposition but also such information about thrust Propulsion Transfers force Provides input In regards to the interactionsCapsule , the Figure 18 module 17C, 22D conceptual difference as the way by which the specific 22C2 illustrates that capsule “transfers force” to22D1 the Aerodynamic Controls attitude Control attitude concept performs the internal function "decreasing (the Thrusters propulsionsurfaces module; 22D2 while rocket engine “provides Control energy of) the module", for example. As such in case of thrust” to propulsion moduleAerodynamic of Newenergy Shepard. decelerators Virgin Galactic concept the airframe of Both the structure and the interactions data are WhiteKnightTwo decreases its energy, while in case of important, as they convey the information about the Blue Origin concept the Propulsion module's rocket

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 8 of 11 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms. engine both increase and decrease the energy of The model-based representation reveals the key propulsion module. processes occurring during the operations of the system: The utility of the model-based representation is that "launching", "accelerating", "separating", it allows us to clearly see what exactly form performs "accelerating", "lofting",Blue Origin: "decelerating", ConOps and "landing" what function, and what internal form performs what indicated by process oval annotation in Figure 20. internal function. This concludes the enumeration of the information that would be contained in the model-based representation of an integrated concept. The fifth andFigure 19 last assertion of the concept framework is the concept of operations (see Figure 2). This assertion includes the ConOps itself (entry 26), the operator (entry 27), and the context (entry 28); and is summarized in Figure 19, which is a table view of ConOps assertion.

Concept of Operations Fig. 21. Concept of Operations (fifth assertion) for Blue 26 See diagrams (Figures 20, 21) Origin system 27 Pilots The ConOps for the Blue Origin system is pictured 28 See diagrams (Figures 22, 23) in Figure 21. The both New Shepard’s propulsion Fig. 19. ConOps assertion (fifth assertion) for both module and capsule are launched from the pad, after alternatives in a table view which the capsule separates from the propulsion

module. Then the propulsion module decelerates and The ConOps with the emphasis on SpaceShipTwo is shown in Figure 20. From this figure we can see that the lands by means of rocket engine, while the capsule Virgin Galactic system launches from the Mojave lands using the parachute system. The key processes illustrated by process ovals in Figure 21 are spaceport, reaches an altitude of 15km, at which the “launching”, “accelerating”, “separating”, “lofting”, SpaceShipTwo separates from the WhiteKnightTwo. “decelerating”, and “landing”. Then SpaceShipTwo climbs for about 90 seconds at the The operator (entry 27) is the person who is using velocity of 4000 km/h to achieve the altitude of 100 km. the system [2]. In both cases, for the Virgin Galactic Once there, it lofts to 110 km, after which it decelerates, system and for the Blue Origin system, the operators are unfolding the unique re-entry system. At the final stages the pilots. of the mission the SpaceShipTwo performs the The context surrounds the form of the system. In unpowered glide and finally lands back at the Mojave context we include all those systems that are relevant to spaceport. Virgin Galactic: ConOps system and its operations, sometimes called accompanying [2] or enabling systems [22]. In Figures 22 and 23 the context for both alternative concepts are shown. We see that the system boundary distinguishes the system of interest from other systems that are relevant and should be taken into account.

Suborbital whole product system

Communication Virgin Galactic Spaceport Customer system system Mojave support

System boundary

Fig. 22. Context (fifth assertion) for Virgin Galactic system

Fig. 20. Concept of Operations (fifth assertion) for Consider the exampleSuborbital of Virgin Galactic system Virgin Galactic system presented in Figure 22.whole product From this figure we notice that system the “Virgin Galactic system” is inside the system

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Communication Blue Origin Page Corn Ranch 9 of 11 Customer system system Spaceport support

System boundary 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms. boundary, which is clear as this is the system under engineering design environment in earlier, conceptual exploration. There are number of systems that are stages of the design process. outside of system boundary, but relevant to it and We believe that the proposed approach will serve the Suborbital should also be consideredwhole product – such as the purpose of facilitating the development of new systems, “Communication system”,system “Spaceport Mojave”, and as well as the exploration of the existing ones. “Customer support”. Thus the context is important, as Our approach has some limitations. The first lies in none of the systems operate alone, especially in our age the necessity to include the specialists from a wide ofCommunication connectivity Virgin Galactic when systems areSpaceport interacting Customer with each range of engineering fields into the design group aimed system system Mojave support other, support each other, and inform each other. at the development of a specific concept. This requires Figure 23 demonstratesSystem boundary the context for the Blue them to operate using the same ontology and semantics, Origin system. We may notice that this system is and using the same principles for encoding the graphical launched from the Corn Ranch Spaceport. and textual information. Although in our paper we proposed the strictly defined approach to this problem,

Suborbital the issue with a team formation is still to be explored. whole product Thus, this is a potentially promising direction of the system future research. Another limitation deals with the ability of human designer to narrow down the set of alternative solutions Communication Blue Origin Corn Ranch Customer system system Spaceport support taking into account the whole spectrum of possibilities and eliminating the potential bias based on experience System boundary Fig. 23. Context (fifth assertion) for Blue Origin system and personal preferences.

5. Conclusions References In this paper we proposed a model-based concept framework and demonstrated that it can be effectively [1] Model-based Conceptual Design Working Group used to capture the conceptual information about (MBCD WG) Charter. 2 October 2012, alternative concepts. We also demonstrated how this https://www.incose.org/docs/default- framework can be applied to the Virgin Galactic and source/wgcharters/model-based-conceptual- Blue Origin systems. We have shown how, based on the design.pdf?sfvrsn=920eb2c6_6, (accessed 16.08.18). stakeholders’ needs, the system architect can [2] E. Crawley, B. Cameron, and D. Selva, System progressively move the design process to the architecture: strategy and product development for formulation of the abstract solution-neutral function that complex systems, Prentice Hall Press, 2015. is further specialized to the solution-specific [3] https://www.virgingalactic.com, (accessed 16.08.18) information containing the possible alternative solutions [4] https://www.blueorigin.com, (accessed 16.08.18). for stated problem. The information for various [5] https://ansari.xprize.org, (accessed 16.08.18). concepts can be represented in the grid of Figures 2, 3A, [6] W. Peeters, From suborbital space tourism to 4, 5, 7A, 9A, 11, 15, 19, or graphically (as in Figures commercial personal spaceflight, Acta Astronautica 3B, 6, 7B, 8, 9B, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23) and 66, no. 11-12 (2010): 1625-1632. on the same level of granularity for systems such as [7] International Space University, MS08 team project, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. As such, we can see Great expectations: an assessment of the potential the distinctive features between SpaceShipTwo and for suborbital transportation. 2008, New Shepard. https://isulibrary.isunet.edu/doc_num.php?explnum_ It is a finding of this work that there is actually a id=95, (accessed 16.08.18). relatively large body of information necessary to [8] Y. Menshenin, E. Crawley, A Framework for document a concept. This in contrast with conventional Concept and its Testing on Patents, INCOSE practice, which usually captures a concept in a “tag International Symposium 2018, Washington, D.C., line” (like Blended Wing Body) or a sketch. The USA, 2018, 7 – 12 July. inference is that in such conventional representations [9] D. Dori, Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic there must be a great deal of tacit knowledge, which System Paradigm, Springer, Berlin, 2002. when make explicit requires much more information to [10] S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, and R. Steiner, A represent. practical guide to SysML: the systems modelling This work might have several aspects of utility. One language, Morgan Kaufmann, 2014. is the ability to encode textual information into a model- [11] R.E. Freeman, Strategic management: A based environment that keep the same semantics and stakeholder approach, Boston: Pitman, 1984. level of granularity for the multiple alternative concepts. This makes it possible to engage the concurrent

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 10 of 11 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright ©2018 by Mr. Yaroslav Menshenin. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

[12] M.M. Andreasen, C.T. Hansen, and P.T. Cash, [18] B. Prasad, Concurrent engineering fundamentals, Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset, and Prentice Hall, 1996. Models, Spinger, 2015. [19] J.E. Maier, C.M. Eckert, and P.J. Clarkson, Model [13] N.P. Suh, The principles of design, Oxford granularity and related concepts, In Proceedings of University press, 1990. DESIGN 2016 the 14th International Design [14] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K.H. Grote, Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2016, 16-20 May. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, [20] Y. Menshenin, E. Crawley, DSM-Based Methods Springer, London, 2007. to Represent Specialization Relationships in a [15] K. Ulrich, S. Eppinger, Product design and Concept Framework, 20th International DSM development, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2015. Conference, Trieste, Italy, 2018, 15 - 17 October [16] A. Yassine, D. Whitney, S. Daleiden, J. Lavine. (accepted for publication). (2003), Connectivity maps: modelling and analysing [21] S.D. Eppinger, T.R. Browning, Design structure relationships in product development processes, matrix methods and applications, MIT Press, 2012. Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. [22] INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook (2006) 377-394, 2003. [17] NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. 2016. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/ 20170001761.pdf, (accessed 29.11.2017).

IAC-18.D1.4A.8 Page 11 of 11