Space System Architecture Final Report of SSPARC: the Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium (Thrust II and III) Final Report September 2004 Prof. Daniel Hastings, Principal Investigator Document prepared by Hugh L. McManus, PhD SSPARC Final Report SSPARC Final Report Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium (SSPARC) 10/12/04 SSPARC THRUST 2 and 3 FINAL REPORT Principal Investigator Prof. Daniel Hastings Document Prepared by Dr. Hugh McManus ---- The primary support for this work came through the contract “New Design Paradigms in Space Systems: A Center of Excellence in Space Systems Technology, Architecting and Policy,” NRO 000-00-C-0102, under COTR David Gilliam. The authors acknowledge supplemental financial support for this research made available by the Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI) at MIT, sponsored jointly by the US Air Force and a consortium of aerospace companies. All facts, statements, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not in any way reflect those of the LAI, the US Air Force, the sponsoring companies and organizations (individually or as a group), or MIT. The latter are absolved from any remaining errors or shortcomings for which the author takes full responsibility. This document is copyrighted 2004 by MIT. Its use falls under the LAI consortium agreement. LAI member companies, and SSPARC and LAI sponsoring organizations, may use, reproduce, and distribute this document for internal, non-commercial purposes. This notice should accompany any copies made of the document, or any parts thereof. This document is formatted for double-sided printing and edge binding. Blank pages are inserted for this purpose. Color printing is preferred, but black-and-white printing should still result in a usable document. © 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10/12/04 1 SSPARC Final Report DEDICATION AND NOTE ON SOURCES This document is dedicated to the memory of Joyce Warmkessel, a colleague, mentor, and friend to many in the SSPARC and LAI communities. Many of the core ideas behind this work were originally expressed and developed by her, and she was a key mentor and facilitator to the development of all of this work. The content of this report was developed by the SSPARC consortium. The primary compilers and codifiers of the MATE-CON method were Lt. Nathan Dillar and Adam Ross, in Master’s thesis entitled, respectively, “Utilizing Multiple Attribute Tradespace Exploration with Concurrent Design for Creating Aerospace Systems Requirement,” 1 and “Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration with Concurrent Design as a Value-Centric Framework for Space System Architecture and Design.”2 Major contributors of the original concepts within the method, and/or complimentary methods and tools, include our SSPARC faculty and staff colleagues Elisabeth Paté-Cornell of Stanford University, Joel Sercel and Fred Cullick of Cal Tech, and Amar Gupta of MIT, post-doctoral researcher Bill Kaliardos, and graduate students Jimmy Benjamin, Jason Derleth, Bobak Ferdowsi, Dave Ferris, Russ Garber, Andre Girerd, Seth Guikema, Cyrus Jilla, Chris Roberts, Satwik Seshasai, Nirav Shah, Todd Shuman, Tim Spaulding, Dave Stagney, Dan Thunnissen, Myles Walton, Annalisa Wiegel, and Brandon Wood, along with their advisors and committees. Many other students, staff, and undergraduate researchers also contributed. Bill Borer, Kevin Ray, and John Ballenthin of the Air Force Research Laboratory, Steve Wall of NASA JPL, and Pete Hendrickson of the Department of Defense aided with the development of the method and the development of the case studies. SSPARC research work has been supported by an active group of industry practitioners, through both an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) and on-site implementation activities. The text of this report is built on SSPARC research and member documents. Much of its contents are excerpts, modifications, or paraphrases of published or unpublished work done under SSPARC sponsorship. Every effort has been made to correctly attribute all contributions. Word-for-word excerpts are identified with quotes or indented, with citations. Many other excerpts have been edited to varying degrees and are integrated into the text for clarity. Their sources are cited in the text or in endnotes. Any omissions or errors of attribution should be brought to the authors’ immediate attention for correction. © 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10/12/04 2 SSPARC Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION AND NOTE ON SOURCES ..............................................................................2 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................7 1.1. Organization..............................................................................................................7 1.2. Achievements............................................................................................................9 New design method...................................................................................................9 Design projects..........................................................................................................9 Education of Students................................................................................................9 Interaction with Customer and Industry .....................................................................9 Publications.............................................................................................................11 1.3. Final Report Overview ............................................................................................13 2. ARCHITECTURES............................................................................................................15 2.1. Definition of Architecture........................................................................................15 2.2. Different Views of an Architecture..........................................................................15 2.3. Communities that Use Space Systems .....................................................................16 Commercial.............................................................................................................16 Civil ........................................................................................................................16 Military ...................................................................................................................16 2.4. Space Architectures.................................................................................................17 2.5. Classes of Space Systems ........................................................................................17 Communication.......................................................................................................17 Positioning and Navigation......................................................................................18 Weather...................................................................................................................18 Remote Sensing.......................................................................................................18 Launch ....................................................................................................................18 3. NEED FOR A NEW FRONT-END METHOD...................................................................19 3.1. Current techniques: SMAD .....................................................................................19 3.2. Critical role of front-end work in program success...................................................20 3.3. Problems with classical architecting methods ..........................................................22 4. OVERVIEW OF MATE-CON PROCESS ..........................................................................25 4.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................................25 4.2. Background and Origins..........................................................................................26 4.3. MATE.....................................................................................................................26 4.4. MATE-CON ...........................................................................................................30 4.5. Notes on terminology, requirements, and limits.......................................................33 Process terminology24..............................................................................................33 On requirements24 ...................................................................................................33 Limits and Caveats24................................................................................................34 4.6. Running Example one: Terrestrial Observer Satellite X (X-TOS)24.........................35 4.7. Running Example two: general purpose orbit transfer and servicing vehicle (SpaceTug)..............................................................................................................39 4.8. Detailed Description Of Mate-Con Process..............................................................42 5. IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS, NEEDS, MISSION CONCEPT, AND PROJECT SCOPE ...............................................................................................................................43 5.1. Identify