DOCSLIB.ORG

Mission Operations Cost Estimation Tool (MOCET) 2019 Updates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mission Operations Cost Estimation Tool (MOCET) 2019 Updates Mission Operations Cost Estimation Tool (MOCET) 2019 Updates Marc Hayhurst, Elliott Tibor, Brian Wood The Aerospace Corporation Cindy Daniels, Lissa Jordin, Washito Sasamoto, Waldo Rodriguez NASA Langley Research Center Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) August 14, 2019 Approved for public release OTR 2019-01048. © 2019 The Aerospace Corporation Aerospace acknowledges NASA’s sponsorship under Contract NNL11AA01B Task Order 80LARC18F0021 Topics • MOCET Overview & Status • Updates in MOCET v1.4 • Planned Reserves Process • User Community • Summary & Future Work 2 MOCET Overview • The Mission Operations Cost Estimation Tool (MOCET) – A capability for Phase E estimation jointly developed by The Aerospace Corporation and NASA Science Office for Mission Assessments (SOMA) – Based on actual costs of historical missions with emphasis on competed missions – Constructed by breaking the mission operations cost into the various phases – Has few subjective inputs – Estimates total Phase E mission cost – Implemented entirely in Excel and requires no additional software or tools – Also includes a user manual which provides additional instruction and background Download from ONCE Model Portal https://oncedata.msfc.nasa.gov Available external to NASA via Mars 2034 Rover https://software.nasa.gov Mission Schedule Mar-34 Oct-34 Apr-35 Nov-35 May-36 Dec-36 Jun-37 Cruise For more information: Approach/EDL Email: [email protected] First Landed Month Landed Prime Operations 3 MOCET Mission Types Database Overview Mission/CER Type Program Missions Discovery MESSENGER, Stardust, Deep Impact, GRAIL, NEAR, Dawn Mars Scout Phoenix Planetary Robotic Lunar Exploration LRO, LADEE New Frontiers New Horizons, Juno (Orbital Ops), OSIRIS-REx (Cruise, Approach/Orbit Insertion) Mars Exploration MRO, Odyssey, MER, MSL, MAVEN, Insight Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) GRACE, CloudSat, CALIPSO, Aquarius, OCO-2, CYGNSS, OCO-3, GEDI Earth Science Earth Systematic Missions (ESM) Aqua, Aura, Terra, Jason-1, OSTM, ICESat, GPM, SMAP, TSIS-1, ICESat-2, GRACE-FO Mission of Opportunity (MO) Suazku (ASTRO-E2), TWINS, CINDI, NICER, GOLD Explorers Small Explorers (SMEX) NuSTAR, IRIS, IBEX, AIM, GALEX, RHESSI Medium Explorers (MIDEX) THEMIS, Swift, WISE, TESS Discovery Genesis, Kepler Solar Terrestrial Probes (STP) STEREO, TIMED, MMS Near Earth Discovery Living With a Star (LWS) RBSP, SDO, PSP Helio-Astro Cosmic Origins Spitzer Physics of the Cosmos Fermi, Chandra Bold = New Data in v1.4 Potential New Data for possible version 1.X update Data Sources Utilized and Consulted – NASA SAP Business – Monthly Flight Project Reviews (FPR) – NASA Cost Analysis Data Warehouse and Monthly Status Reviews (MSR) Requirements (CADRe) • Monthly Expenditures • Monthly Expenditures, Mission Events • Project development costs used & Schedule to assign mission class 4 MOCET CER Updates Planetary CER Name New Data Updated Comments Inflation Nominal/Quiescent Cruise CER X X OSIRIS-REx data incorporated Checkout Cruise CER X Landed Missions Broken Out Mars Landed Cruise CER X X New CER with Phoenix, Insight, and MSL Orbital Operations CER X X Juno & OSIRIS-REx data incorporated. Flyby/Encounter CER X Approach/Orbit Insertion/Reduction CER X X OSIRIS-REx data incorporated Approach EDL CER X X Insight data incorporated Landed Checkout CER X X Renamed; Insight data incorporated Landed Prime Operations X X Insight data incorporated Data/Sample Analysis & Archiving X Extended Orbital Ops CER X Extended Landed Ops CER X Earth/Near-Earth/Other CER Name New Data Updated Comments Inflation Earth/Near-Earth Orbiting Checkout CER X X Earth Science Prime Operations CER X X CYGNSS, SMAP Explorer Prime Operations CER X X NICER, GOLD, TESS data incorporated Near Earth Discovery Helio Astro Prime Operations CER X Instrument Only Operations CER X X New CER, Satellite and ISS Hosted 5 Explorers Prime Operations Phase CER • CER Function: = 0.5338 + 0.3740 0.3583 + 0.1225 Variable Name Units Definition Y Cost FY18 $M ∗Average monthly− checkout∗ phase cost ∗ IMe IsMedium? 0 or 1 0 No, 1 Yes, Is this a medium mission class mission? IMi IsMicro? 0 or 1 0 No, 1 Yes, Is this a micro mission class mission? IA IsAstro? 0 or 1 0 No, 1 Yes, Is this an astrophysics mission? • Goodness of Fit $1.2 Measure Value $1.0 Regression Method OLS $0.8 Standard Error (RSS) 0.07 $0.6 Average Percentage Bias 0.0% Coefficient of Determination (R^2) 0.96 Predicted $0.4 Adjusted R^2 0.95 $0.2 Pearson's Correlation Sqd (r^2) 0.96 $- Number of Observations 15 $- $0.2 $0.4 $0.6 $0.8 $1.0 $1.2 Number of Input Variables 3 Actual • Database 1. IBEX (IMe 0, IMi 0, IA 0) 6. Swift (IMe 1, IMi 0, IA 1) 11. Suzaku (IMe 0, IMi 1, IA 1) 2. AIM (IMe 0, IMi 0, IA 0) 7. WISE (IMe 1, IMi 0, IA 1) 12. IRIS (IMe 0, IMi 0, IA 0)* 3. NuSTAR (IMe 0, IMi 0, IA 1) 8. RHESSI (IMe 0, IMi 0, IA 0) 13. NICER (IMe 0, IMi 1, IA 1) 4. GALEX (IMe 0, IMi 0, IA 1) 9. CINDI (IMe 0, IMi 1, IA 0) 14. TESS (IMe 1, IMi 0, IA 1) 5. THEMIS (IMe 1, IMi 0, IA 0) 10. TWINS (IMe 0, IMi 1, IA 0) 15 GOLD (IMe 0, IMi 1, IA 0) Additional Notes • *IRIS was a SMEX mission but the development cost grew beyond small mission class boundary. In operations the IRIS average monthly cost is also higher than any other SMEX mission. • **Copies of identical instruments (THEMIS, TWINS) or suites of similarly functioned sensors (CINDI) are considered to be a single instrument since the same data processing tools can be used for them. • ***Earth & near Earth orbiting multiple spacecraft missions such as THEMIS may be estimated with MOCET without further adjusting the output estimate. 6 Mars EDL Cruise Prime Phase CER • CER Function: = 0.0056 . Variable Name Units 1 1388 Definition Y Cost ∗FY19 $M Planetary mission average monthly prime checkout cruise phase cost Mass of rover or lander plus payload instruments for which NASA will RLM Rover/Lander Mass kg > 0 fund operations (exclude contributed instruments). • Goodness of Fit $16 $14 Measure Value $12 Regression Method GERM ZMPE $10 Standard Error of the Estimate 14.2% $8 Average Percentage Bias 0.0% Predicted $6 Pearson's Correlation Sqd (R^2) 0.98 $4 Number of Observations 3 $2 Number of Input Variables 1 $- $- $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 Actual • Database 1. Phoenix (342.9) 2. MSL (919.9) 3. Insight (318.6) 4. MER (A/B)* Additional Notes • *MER was not included in the model due using multiple spacecraft. At this time there is not sufficient data to recommend an adjustment for multiple planetary spacecraft and the model does not support estimation of planetary multiple spacecraft missions 7 Landed Operations Prime Phase CER • CER Function: = 0.0591 . Variable Name Units 0 7034 Definition Y Cost ∗FY19 $M Planetary mission average monthly prime landed operations phase cost Mass of rover or lander plus payload instruments for which NASA will RLM Rover/Lander Mass kg > 0 fund operations (exclude contributed instruments). • Goodness of Fit $8 $7 Measure Value $6 Regression Method GERM ZMPE $5 Standard Error of the Estimate 7.2% $4 Average Percentage Bias 0.0% Predicted $3 Pearson's Correlation Sqd (R^2) 0.98 $2 Number of Observations 3 $1 Number of Input Variables 1 $- $- $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 Actual • Database 1. Phoenix (342.9) 2. MSL (919.9) 3. Insight (318.6) 4. MER (A/B)* Additional Notes • *MER was not included in the model due using multiple spacecraft. At this time there is not sufficient data to recommend an adjustment for multiple planetary spacecraft and the model does not support estimation of planetary multiple spacecraft missions 8 MOCET Reserves Approach (1 of 2) • When calculating the reserve level for operations phase estimates, a percent reserve of the base operations budget is often considered – Rule of thumb used by some considers a minimum 10% up to 25% for Phase E – Aerospace publication* showed that on average from launch estimate to final actual growth was around 10% • Not a simple matter of just looking at the offeror’s proposal and seeing if they are carrying between 10% and 25% reserve on their estimate – Offerors’ estimates and MOCET estimates vary significantly – Requires a new method of computing reserves for each MOCET estimate • To determine best method of computing reserves for MOCET – Obtained data from available Step 1 and Step 2 proposals as well as other milestones for comparison – Generated MOCET estimates using input parameters as given at Step 1, Step 2, etc. – Also, collected the offerors estimates for comparison *Phase E Cost Analysis for NASA Science Missions, Robert Bitten, Marc Hayhurst, Debra Emmons, Claude Freaner, and Voleak Roeum, AIAA SPACE 2012 Conference & Exposition. Pasadena, California. 9 MOCET Reserves Approach (2 of 2) • With the MOCET estimates generated at each milestone the percent difference from the final actual was computed for each mission – The following equation was used to compute the percent difference @ 100% = @ − ∗ • Then the overall average percent difference and standard deviation were computed • Various methods to compute reserve level were attempted and these metrics were compared at each milestone to determine which methods were most effective – Methodologies driven by historical data were considered to maintain objectivity • Concluded that the best performing method is to employ a triangle distribution with the Formal Risk (FRISK) process driven by historical percent differences of similar missions at a particular milestone – Similar missions are determined by mission category 10 Percent Difference for all Explorer Missions • As compared to Explorer Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shock Connectivity and the Late Cycle 24 Solar Energetic Particle Events in July and September 2017
    Shock Connectivity and the Late Cycle 24 Solar Energetic Particle Events in July and September 2017 J.G. Luhmann1, M.L. Mays2, Yan Li1, C.O. Lee1, H. Bain3, D. Odstrcil4, R.A. Mewaldt5, C.M.S. Cohen5, D. Larson1, Gordon Petrie6 1Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. 2CCMC, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. 3NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. 4George Mason University. 5California Institute of Technology. 6NSO. Corresponding author: Janet Luhmann ([email protected]) Key Points: Observer shock connectivity explains the SEP observations during the July and September 2017 events. The July and September 2017 solar and SEP events had similar characteristics due to similar source region and eruptions. The July and September 2017 events seemed to arise in conjunction with the appearance of a pseudostreamer, a possible alternate ICME source. This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1029/2018SW001860 © 2018 American Geophysical Union. All rights reserved. Abstract As solar activity steadily declined toward the cycle 24 minimum in the early months of 2017, the expectation for major Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events diminished with the sunspot number. It was thus surprising (though not unprecedented) when a new, potentially significant active region rotated around the East limb in early July that by mid-month was producing a series of coronal eruptions, reaching a crescendo around July 23. This series, apparently associated with the birth of a growing pseudostreamer, produced the largest SEP event(s) seen since the solar maximum years.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE)
    Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 13, EGU2011-5107-2, 2011 EGU General Assembly 2011 © Author(s) 2011 NASA’s Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) Richard Elphic (1), Gregory Delory (1,2), Anthony Colaprete (1), Mihaly Horanyi (3), Paul Mahaffy (4), Butler Hine (1), Steven McClard (5), Joan Salute (6), Edwin Grayzeck (6), and Don Boroson (7) (1) NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA USA ([email protected]), (2) Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA USA, (3) Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO USA, (4) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD USA, (5) LunarQuest Program Office, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL USA, (6) Planetary Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA, Washington, DC USA, (7) Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington MA USA Nearly 40 years have passed since the last Apollo missions investigated the mysteries of the lunar atmosphere and the question of levitated lunar dust. The most important questions remain: what is the composition, structure and variability of the tenuous lunar exosphere? What are its origins, transport mechanisms, and loss processes? Is lofted lunar dust the cause of the horizon glow observed by the Surveyor missions and Apollo astronauts? How does such levitated dust arise and move, what is its density, and what is its ultimate fate? The US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council decadal surveys and the recent “Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon” (SCEM) reports have identified studies of the pristine state of the lunar atmosphere and dust environment as among the leading priorities for future lunar science missions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Van Allen Probes' Contribution to the Space Weather System
    L. J. Zanetti et al. The Van Allen Probes’ Contribution to the Space Weather System Lawrence J. Zanetti, Ramona L. Kessel, Barry H. Mauk, Aleksandr Y. Ukhorskiy, Nicola J. Fox, Robin J. Barnes, Michele Weiss, Thomas S. Sotirelis, and NourEddine Raouafi ABSTRACT The Van Allen Probes mission, formerly the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission, was renamed soon after launch to honor the late James Van Allen, who discovered Earth’s radiation belts at the beginning of the space age. While most of the science data are telemetered to the ground using a store-and-then-dump schedule, some of the space weather data are broadcast continu- ously when the Probes are not sending down the science data (approximately 90% of the time). This space weather data set is captured by contributed ground stations around the world (pres- ently Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute and the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Czech Republic), automatically sent to the ground facility at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Phys- ics Laboratory, converted to scientific units, and published online in the form of digital data and plots—all within less than 15 minutes from the time that the data are accumulated onboard the Probes. The real-time Van Allen Probes space weather information is publicly accessible via the Van Allen Probes Gateway web interface. INTRODUCTION The overarching goal of the study of space weather ing radiation, were the impetus for implementing a space is to understand and address the issues caused by solar weather broadcast capability on NASA’s Van Allen disturbances and the effects of those issues on humans Probes’ twin pair of satellites, which were launched in and technological systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with a Star Targeted Research and Technology (TR&T) Steering
    Living with a Star Targeted Research and Technology (TR&T) Steering Committee Steering Committee Members: Liaison Members: Co-Chair: Eftyhia Zesta (GSFC) Terry Onsager (NOAA) Co-Chair: Mark Linton (NRL) Rodney Vierick (NOAA) Yuri Shprits (MIT) Ilia Roussev (NSF) Scott McIntosh (NCAR / HAO) Vyacheslav Lukin (NSF) Nathan Schwadron (UNH ex-chair) Masha Kuznetsova (GSFC / Community Karel Schrijver (Lockheed Martin) Coordinated Modeling Center) Jim Slavin (U Michigan) Mona Kessel (NASA HQ / Chadi Salem (UC Berkeley) Van Allen Probes) Alexa Halford (GSFC) Dean Pesnell (GSFC / Pontus Brandt (APL) Solar Dynamics Observatory) Tim Bastian (NRAO) David Sibeck (GSFC / Van Allen Probes) Kent Tobiska Adam Szabo (GSFC / Solar Probe Plus) (Space Environment Tech.) Chris St. Cyr (GSFC / Solar Orbiter) LWS Program Ex Officio: Elsayed Talaat & Jeff Morrill (NASA HQ), Shing Fung (GSFC) 2003 Science Definition Team Report: Living with a Star Objectives LWS initiative: goal-oriented research program targeting those aspects of the Sun-Earth system that directly affect life and society. The objectives of LWS will advance research in Sun-Earth system science to new territory, producing knowledge and understanding that society can ultimately utilize. 2003 LWS Science Definition Team Report: TR&T Program The Targeted Research and Technology (TR&T) component of LWS provides the theory, modeling, and data analysis necessary to enable an integrated, system-wide picture of Sun-Earth connection science with societal relevance. Science Definition Team (SDT) … formed
    [Show full text]
  • Sentinelssentinels
    SentinelsSentinels This LWS program element includes the Inner Heliospheric Sentinels (IHS) and the Far Side Sentinel (FSS) missions, each with its own distinct concept. And post o’er land and ocean without rest, They also serve who only stand and wait. On His Blindness Goddard Space Flight Center John Milton SentinelsSentinels StudyStudy ChronologyChronology Date Event Concept 1/13/00 Sentinels Briefing By A. Szabo Far Side Observer, L1 Cluster, NG STEREO 1/20/00 Preformulation Team Meeting Imaging/In-Situ Libration Point Measurements 2/2/00 Preformulation Team Meeting Emphasis On Heliospheric Elements 2/3/00 to 3/31/00 Libration Point Orbit Studies Orbit Trajectory Options 3/31/00 Preformulation Team Meeting Far Side Sentinel/4 Inner Heliospheric Sentinels 4/6/00 Sentinels Workshop 4 Satellite Constellation/Far Side Options 4/7/00 JPL Preliminary FSS Concept 3-Axis Spacecraft/5 Instruments/1 Launch 4/10/00 IMDC IHS Briefing 4 Spinning Satellites/4 Instruments/1 Launch 4/17/00 to 4/20/00 IMDC IHS Study 4 Spinning Satellites/4 Instruments/1 Launch 4/20/00 to 4/27/00 JPL FSS Concept/Cost Update Custom Spacecraft/5 Instruments/1 Launch 4/21/00 to 5/5/00 GSFC Mission Costing Far Side Sentinel/4 Inner Heliospheric Sentinels 5/25/00 FSS Mission Concept Summary Defined In Attached System/Subsystem Charts 5/31/00 Program Operating Plan Costed As Two Separate Missions Goddard Space Flight Center SentinelsSentinels ConceptConcept EvolutionEvolution LWS scientists initially considered a complement of spacecraft for the Sentinels mission that included a spacecraft observing the far side of the Sun, a cluster of satellites at L1, and two next-generation STEREO spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • First Year of Coordinated Science Observations by Mars Express and Exomars 2016 Trace Gas Orbiter
    MANUSCRIPT PRE-PRINT Icarus Special Issue “From Mars Express to ExoMars” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113707 First year of coordinated science observations by Mars Express and ExoMars 2016 Trace Gas Orbiter A. Cardesín-Moinelo1, B. Geiger1, G. Lacombe2, B. Ristic3, M. Costa1, D. Titov4, H. Svedhem4, J. Marín-Yaseli1, D. Merritt1, P. Martin1, M.A. López-Valverde5, P. Wolkenberg6, B. Gondet7 and Mars Express and ExoMars 2016 Science Ground Segment teams 1 European Space Astronomy Centre, Madrid, Spain 2 Laboratoire Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales, Guyancourt, France 3 Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, Brussels, Belgium 4 European Space Research and Technology Centre, Noordwijk, The Netherlands 5 Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, Granada, Spain 6 Istituto Nazionale Astrofisica, Roma, Italy 7 Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale, Orsay, Paris, France Abstract Two spacecraft launched and operated by the European Space Agency are currently performing observations in Mars orbit. For more than 15 years Mars Express has been conducting global surveys of the surface, the atmosphere and the plasma environment of the Red Planet. The Trace Gas Orbiter, the first element of the ExoMars programme, began its science phase in 2018 focusing on investigations of the atmospheric composition with unprecedented sensitivity as well as surface and subsurface studies. The coordination of observation programmes of both spacecraft aims at cross calibration of the instruments and exploitation of new opportunities provided by the presence of two spacecraft whose science operations are performed by two closely collaborating teams at the European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC). In this paper we describe the first combined observations executed by the Mars Express and Trace Gas Orbiter missions since the start of the TGO operational phase in April 2018 until June 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Insight Spacecraft Launch for Mission to Interior of Mars
    InSight Spacecraft Launch for Mission to Interior of Mars InSight is a robotic scientific explorer to investigate the deep interior of Mars set to launch May 5, 2018. It is scheduled to land on Mars November 26, 2018. It will allow us to better understand the origin of Mars. First Launch of Project Orion Project Orion took its first unmanned mission Exploration flight Test-1 (EFT-1) on December 5, 2014. It made two orbits in four hours before splashing down in the Pacific. The flight tested many subsystems, including its heat shield, electronics and parachutes. Orion will play an important role in NASA's journey to Mars. Orion will eventually carry astronauts to an asteroid and to Mars on the Space Launch System. Mars Rover Curiosity Lands After a nine month trip, Curiosity landed on August 6, 2012. The rover carries the biggest, most advanced suite of instruments for scientific studies ever sent to the martian surface. Curiosity analyzes samples scooped from the soil and drilled from rocks to record of the planet's climate and geology. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Begins Mission at Mars NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launched from Cape Canaveral August 12. 2005, to find evidence that water persisted on the surface of Mars. The instruments zoom in for photography of the Martian surface, analyze minerals, look for subsurface water, trace how much dust and water are distributed in the atmosphere, and monitor daily global weather. Spirit and Opportunity Land on Mars January 2004, NASA landed two Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, on opposite sides of Mars.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Heliophysics Division Template
    NASA Heliophysics Division Update Heliophysics Advisory Committee October 1, 2019 Dr. Nicola J. Fox Director, Heliophysics Division Science Mission Directorate 1 The Dawn of a New Era for Heliophysics Heliophysics Division (HPD), in collaboration with its partners, is poised like never before to -- Explore uncharted territory from pockets of intense radiation near Earth, right to the Sun itself, and past the planets into interstellar space. Strategically combine research from a fleet of carefully-selected missions at key locations to better understand our entire space environment. Understand the interaction between Earth weather and space weather – protecting people and spacecraft. Coordinate with other agencies to fulfill its role for the Nation enabling advances in space weather knowledge and technologies Engage the public with research breakthroughs and citizen science Develop the next generation of heliophysicists 2 Decadal Survey 3 Alignment with Decadal Survey Recommendations NASA FY20 Presidential Budget Request R0.0 Complete the current program Extended operations of current operating missions as recommended by the 2017 Senior Review, planning for the next Senior Review Mar/Apr 2020; 3 recently launched and now in primary operations (GOLD, Parker, SET); and 2 missions currently in development (ICON, Solar Orbiter) R1.0 Implement DRIVE (Diversify, Realize, Implemented DRIVE initiative wedge in FY15; DRIVE initiative is now Integrate, Venture, Educate) part of the Heliophysics R&A baseline R2.0 Accelerate and expand Heliophysics Decadal recommendation of every 2-3 years; Explorer mission AO Explorer program released in 2016 and again in 2019. Notional mission cadence will continue to follow Decadal recommendation going forward. Increased frequency of Missions of Opportunity (MO), including rideshares on IMAP and Tech Demo MO.
    [Show full text]
  • Maven by Example I
    Maven by Example i Maven by Example Ed. 0.7 Maven by Example ii Contents 1 Introducing Apache Maven1 1.1 Maven. What is it?....................................1 1.2 Convention Over Configuration...............................2 1.3 A Common Interface....................................3 1.4 Universal Reuse through Maven Plugins..........................3 1.5 Conceptual Model of a “Project”..............................4 1.6 Is Maven an alternative to XYZ?..............................5 1.7 Comparing Maven with Ant................................6 2 Installing Maven 10 2.1 Verify your Java Installation................................ 10 2.2 Downloading Maven.................................... 11 2.3 Installing Maven...................................... 11 Maven by Example iii 2.3.1 Installing Maven on Linux, BSD and Mac OS X................. 11 2.3.2 Installing Maven on Microsoft Windows...................... 12 2.3.2.1 Setting Environment Variables..................... 12 2.4 Testing a Maven Installation................................ 13 2.5 Maven Installation Details................................. 13 2.5.1 User-Specific Configuration and Repository.................... 14 2.5.2 Upgrading a Maven Installation.......................... 15 2.6 Uninstalling Maven..................................... 15 2.7 Getting Help with Maven.................................. 15 2.8 About the Apache Software License............................ 16 3 A Simple Maven Project 17 3.1 Introduction......................................... 17 3.1.1 Downloading
    [Show full text]
  • Explore Digital.Pdf
    EXPLORE “sic itur ad astra” ~ thus you shall go to the stars EXPERTISE FOR THE MISSION We’ve built more interplanetary spacecraft than all other U.S. companies combined. We’re ready for humanity’s next step, for Earth, the Sun, our planets … and beyond. We do this for the New capability explorers. And for us for a new space era Achieving in space takes tenacity. Lockheed Martin brings more We’ve never missed a tight (and finite) capability to the table than ever planetary mission launch window. before, creating better data, new Yet, despite how far we go, the most images and groundbreaking ways to important technologies we develop work. And we’re doing it with smarter improve life now, closer to home. factories and common products, Here on Earth. making our systems increasingly affordable and faster to produce. HALF A CENTURY AT MARS Getting to space is hard. Each step past that is increasingly harder. We’ve been a part of every NASA mission to Mars, and we know what it takes to arrive on another planet and explore. Our proven work includes aeroshells, autonomous deep space operations or building orbiters and landers, like InSight. AEROSHELLS VIKING 1 VIKING 2 PATHFINDER MARS POLAR SPIRIT OPPORTUNITY PHOENIX CURIOSITY INSIGHT MARS 2020 1976 1976 1996 LANDER 2004 2018 2008 2012 2018 2020 1999 ORBITERS MARS OBSERVER MARS GLOBAL MARS CLIMATE MARS ODYSSEY MARS RECONNAISSANCE MAVEN 1993 SURVEYOR ORBITER 2001 ORBITER 2014 1997 1999 2006 LANDERS VIKING 1 VIKING 2 MARS POLAR PHOENIX INSIGHT 1976 1976 LANDER 2008 2018 1999 Taking humans back to the Moon – We bring solutions for our customers that include looking outside our organization to deliver the best science through our spacecraft and operations expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with a Star Pre-Formulation Study
    Living With a Star Pre-Formulation Study Volume 2 Mission Concept Descriptions August 1, 2000 G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R AcknowledgementAcknowledgement The Living With a Star (LWS) study management acknowledges with gratitude the significant contributions to this volume made by GSFC engineering team and Integrated Mission Design Center (IMDC) personnel. A special note of thanks also goes to NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory personnel who developed the concept for the Far Side Sentinel mission and provided timely input to the mission study team. G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R OverviewOverview This volume summarizes the results of a 6-month LWS pre-formulation study to develop initial concepts for a set of missions that form the basis for the NASA proposed space weather research network. Pre-formulation begins the process to define a viable and affordable concept for new NASA programs and projects. This step is followed by a more formal formulation phase to ensure that the program or project is ready to proceed into implementation. The policy and process are defined in NPD 7120.4A and NPG 7120.5A. G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R TraceabilityTraceability A concerted effort has been made to maintain traceability of concepts and associated costs throughout the LWS program study. This added rigor will allow intelligent trade-offs to be performed and assessed as the program evolves over the months and years ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sun-Earth Connected System
    Living With A Star (LWS) SEC MISSIONS AND PLANS Solar Terrestrial Probes (STP) Madhulika Guhathakurta([email protected]) SUN-EARTH CONNECTIONS DIVISION NASA, OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE Alpbach Summer School, July 23- August 1, 2002 M. Guhathakurta NASA The Sun-Earth Connected Headquarters7/23/02-8/1/02 System Planet Variable Star Varying • Radiation • Solar Wind • Energetic Particles Interacting • Solar Wind • Energetic Particles Interacting Interacting • Magnetic Fields • Plasmas • Magnetic fields • Energetic Particles • Atmosphere QUESTIONS: • Plasma • Energetic Particles • How and why does the Sun vary? • How do the Earth and planets respond? • What are the impacts on humanity? Summer School Alpbach M. Guhathakurta NASA Sun-Earth System -- Driven by 11 Year Solar Cycle Headquarters7/23/02-8/1/02 Solar Maximum: • Increased flares, solar mass ejections, radiation belt enhancements. • 100 Times Brighter X-ray Emissions 0.1% Brighter in Visible • Increased heating of Earth’s upper atmosphere; solar event induced ionospheric effects. Declining Phase, Solar Mnimum: • High speed solar wind streams, solar mass ejections cause geomagnetic storms. Solar Flares Geomagnetic Storms Year 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 Summer School Alpbach M. Guhathakurta NASA Why Do We Care? Headquarters7/23/02-8/1/02 • Solar Variability Affects Human Technology, Humans in Space, and Terrestrial Climate. • The Sphere of the Human Environment Continues to Expand Above and Beyond Our Planet. - Increasing dependence on space-based systems - Permanent presence of humans in Earth orbit and beyond Summer School Alpbach M. Guhathakurta NASA Living With a Star: Objectives Headquarters7/23/02-8/1/02 LWS is a systems study of three linked questions: • How and why does the Sun vary? • How does the Earth respond? • What are the impacts on life and society? - Understand solar variability and its effects on space and Earth environments.
    [Show full text]