Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

AE3340

Design and Systems


Engineering Methods
Summer 2018
Dr. Elena Garcia
Systems Engineering – Multiple Perspectives
• NASA
• Systems engineering is a methodical, disciplined approach for the design,
realization, technical management, operations, and retirement of a system
• Systems engineering is the art and science of developing an operable system
capable of meeting requirements within often opposed constraints
• DoD Key Takeaways:
• Processes
• The DoD systems to
engineering build
process isbetter systems
a collection of technical management
processes and technical processes applied through the acquisition lifecycle. The
technical •management
Interdisciplinary
processes are technical planning, configuration
management, Interface management, technical data management, requirement

management, Balance of conflicting
risk management, requirements
technical assessment, and decision analysis. The
technical processes are stakeholder requirements definition, requirements
• Considering
analysis, architecture
and transition.
the entire
design, implementation, life cycle
integration, verification, validation
• Considering
• INCOSE (International Council onall Systems
stakeholders, focus on
Engineering)
customer
• Systems Engineering (SE) isneeds
an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable
the realization of successful systems
• It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the
development cycle, documenting requirements, and then proceeding with design
synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem:
operations, cost and schedule, performance, training and support, test,
manufacturing, and disposal
• SE considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the
goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs
The Project Life Cycle Module

Space Systems Engineering, version 1.0

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module


Introduction to the Project Life Cycle

♦ Lifecycle phases are used to help plan and manage all major
aerospace system developments.
♦ Decomposing the project into life cycle phases organizes the
development process into smaller more manageable pieces.
♦ Everything that should be done to accomplish a project is divided
into distinct phases, separated by control gates.
• For NASA the phases are lettered: Pre-Phase A, Phase A, Phase B,
Phase C, Phase D, Phase E, Phase F
♦ Phase boundaries are defined at natural points for project
progress assessment and go/no go decisions.
• That is, should a project continue to the next phase, “go back to the
drawing board” and redo some current phase work, or be
terminated?
♦ Since early decisions commit later activities and more mature
systems are harder to change, systems engineering done in
the early phases has the greatest impact on mission
success.
Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 5
Early Decisions Impact Long-Term Costs

6
Life-Cycle Stages Are Industry/Product Dependent
The Progression of Requirements
Life Cycle Relationships

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E


Concept & Preliminary System
Concept Final Design Operations &
Technology Design & Tech Assembly , Int &
Studies & Fabrication Sustainment
Development Completion Test, Launch

Organizations
&
People

Artifacts

Prelim. Design-to As-


Problems CONOPS As-built
Design Specs deployed

System Subsystem Build-to As-


Concepts As-verified
Reqmts. Reqmts. Specs operated

Expecta- Validation Verificat’n Verificat’n


Anomalies
tions Plan Plan Procedures

Preliminary Detailed Production Operations


Conceptual Design Design Design & Support
Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 10
Project Life Cycle
Formulation Phases

♦ The project life-cycle phases of formulation and implementation are divided


into incremental pieces. This allows the development team to access their
progress, estimate system and project performance, plan the next phase and
allows decision makers to assess management and technical progress.
♦ Formulation
• Pre-Phase A (Concept Studies)
• Purpose: To produce a broad spectrum of ideas and alternatives for
missions from which new projects can be selected.
• Define the mission needs, goals & objectives.
• Perform studies of a broad range of mission concepts that contribute
to goals and objectives.
• Develop draft project-level requirements, operations concept, and
potential technology needs.
• Show that at least one mission concept can work.
=> Complete Mission Concept Review (MCR): review overall
approaches as a baseline for Phase A.

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 11


Project Life Cycle
Formulation Phases, cont.

♦ Formulation
• Phase A (Concept & Technology Development)
• Purpose: To determine the feasibility of a suggested new
system in preparation for seeking funding.
• Define mission success, and minimum mission.
• Perform trade studies to compare mission concept options.
• Develop a baseline mission concept, including best technical
approach, project execution, cost and schedule.
• Complete the requirements to the subsystem level.
• Identify requirements flow between and across subsystems.
• Begin needed technology developments.
=> Complete System Requirements Review (SRR): Review
requirements as baseline for final concept. Establishes the
System Requirements baseline.
=> Complete System Definition Review (SDR/MDR): Review
baseline for Phase B. Establishes the Functional baseline.
Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 12
Project Life Cycle
Formulation Phases, cont.
♦ Formulation
• Phase B (Preliminary Design & Technology Completion)
• Purpose: To define the project in enough detail to establish an initial
baseline capable of meeting mission needs.
• Refine concept of operations.
• Allocate functions and resources (e.g., mass margins).
• Requirements: continue to refine; define flow to the box level;
develop verification matrix.
• Establish design solution that meets mission needs.
• Demonstrate that technology development is complete.
=> Preliminary Design Review (PDR): Review requirements, design
and operations as baseline for detailed design. Establishes the
Allocated baseline, also known as the ‘design-to’ baseline.
=> Non-Advocate Review (NAR)/Confirmation Review:
– Do the mission, spacecraft and instrument designs meet the
mission/science requirements?
– Are management processes sufficient to develop and operate the
mission?
– Do cost estimates, control processes and schedule indicate that the
mission will be ready to launch on time and within budget?

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 13


Project Life Cycle
Implementation Phases
♦ Implementation (NASA officially commits to the approved integrated baseline)

• Phase C (Final Design and Fabrication)


• Purpose: To design a system (and its associated subsystems, including its
operations systems) so that it will be able to meet its requirements.
• Demonstrate that the detailed system design meets requirements.
• Demonstrate that the design drawings are complete.
• Establishes the product baseline, also known as the ‘build-to’
baseline.
• Begin fabrication of test and flight article components, assemblies, and
subsystems.
=> Critical Design Review (CDR): Review design drawings and test
plans.

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 14


Project Life Cycle
Implementation Phases, cont.

♦ Phase D (System Assembly, Integration and Test, and Launch)


• Purpose: To build the subsystems (including operations systems) and
integrate them to create the system, while developing confidence that it
will be able to meet the systems requirements.
• Perform system assembly, integration, and test.
• Verify system meets requirements.
• Prepare system for deployment.
• Launch system.
• Verify deployment and operations.

=> Complete Flight Readiness Review (FRR):


review system preparedness for launch.
Establishes the ‘As-built’ baseline

Mars Global
Surveyor during
integration and test.

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 15


Project Life Cycle
Implementation Phases, cont.
Phase E (Operations and Sustainment)
• Purpose: To ensure that the certified system is ready for operations.
• Implement the Mission Operations Plan developed in earlier phases.
• Collect and archive mission and science data.
=> Complete Post Launch Assessment Review (PLAR): Review to
assess readiness to proceed with full, routine operations.
Establishes the Operational (or ‘as-deployed’) baseline.
Phase F (Closeout)
• Purpose: To dispose of the system in a responsible manner.
• Conduct a disposal review.
• Implement the Systems Decommissioning/ Disposal Plan.
• Perform analyses of the returned data and any returned samples.

Stardust Landing Genesis Landing


Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 16
Project Lifecycles - Incremental Development Phases
Captured Via Baselines and Bounded by Technical Reviews

Phase A Phase C Phase E


Phase B Phase D
Flight
Readiness
Review
System Post Launch
Definition Assessment
Review Review

Functional Product Operational


As-Built
Baseline Baseline Baseline
Baseline

Need Specify Decompose Design Integrate Verify Operate Dispose

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 17


The Engineering Activities
in the Project Life Cycle

Mission System
Requirements Demonstration E System Level
& Priorities & Validation

Develop System Integrate System &


Requirements & Verify
A System Architecture Performance Specs
Subsystems
Allocate Performance Component
Specs & Build Integration &
Verification Plan Verification
Components
Verify
Design
Component
B Components
Performance

Fabricate, Assemble,
Code &
Procure Parts
C D

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module


NASA Time Scales for Project Life Cycle

♦ Discovery Program example:


• Phase A Concept Study - 7 months
• Selection through launch ~ 7 years
♦ Mars Scout Program example:
• Phase A Concept Study - 9 months
• Selection through launch ~ 6 years
♦ Small Explorer Program example:
• Phase A Concept Study - 3 months
• Selection through launch ~ 3-4 years
For a facility-class telescope development, 10-15 years
depending on technology development required.
For a human spacecraft development (Pre-phase A
through Phase D/Launch), on the order of 10-20+
years.
Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 21
The Challenge of Shrinking Life Cycles

23
Alternatives to the Linear Project Life Cycle

♦ The development life cycle is dependent upon the technical nature of


what’s being developed => the project life cycle may need to be tailored
accordingly.
• Alternatives exist in industry and the government.
♦ Spiral development, often used in the software industry
• Where the development and construction activities proceed in parallel;
follows the doctrine of successive refinement.
♦ Rapid prototyping
• Produces partially operational mock-ups/prototypes early in the design
(initiated during preliminary design phase) to allow for learning prior to
production of expensive flight unit.
♦ Skunkworks (Lockheed trademark)
• “A skunkworks is a group of people who, in order to achieve unusual
results, work on a project in a way that is outside the usual rules. A
skunkworks is often a small team that assumes or is given responsibility for
developing something in a short time with minimal management
constraints. Typically, a skunkworks has a small number of members in
order to reduce communications overhead. A skunkworks is sometimes
used to spearhead a product design that thereafter will be developed
according to the usual process.”

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 24


Module Summary: The Project Life Cycle

♦ A project is divided into distinct life cycle phases.


• Pre-Phase A: Concept studies
• Phase A: Concept and technology development
• Phase B: Preliminary design and technology completion
• Phase C: Final design and fabrication
• Phase D: System assembly, test and launch
• Phase E: Operations and sustainment
• Phase F: Closeout or disposal

♦ These phases are separated by control gates - typically


associated with a major project review, such as preliminary
design review (PDR).
♦ Each project phase has a distinct purpose and set of products.
♦ At the end of each phase a new system baseline — or an
agreed-to set of requirements, designs, or documents — is
established.
♦ A system baseline is the point of departure for the development
work in each new phase.
Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 25
The Progression of Requirements
Life Cycle Relationships

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E


Concept & Preliminary System
Concept Final Design Operations &
Technology Design & Tech Assembly , Int &
Studies & Fabrication Sustainment
Development Completion Test, Launch

Organizations
&
People

Artifacts

Prelim. Design-to As-


Problems CONOPS As-built
Design Specs deployed

System Subsystem Build-to As-


Concepts As-verified
Reqmts. Reqmts. Specs operated

Expecta- Validation Verificat’n Verificat’n


Anomalies
tions Plan Plan Procedures

Space Systems Engineering: Project Life Cycle Module 26


Defining the Problem

Big Picture
Needs

Goals

Objectives

Mission

Assumptions, Constraints
Project Scope Authority and Responsibility

27
Apollo Program Scope Example

♦ Need: Counter Soviet military threat.


♦ Goal: Demonstrate American technological superiority.
♦ Objective: Make a decisive move in the conquest of space.
♦ Mission or business case: Transport a man to the moon, and
return him safely.
♦ Assumptions: All technology needs are achievable.
♦ Constraints: Do it within this decade. Use American-made
components.
♦ Authority and Responsibility: NASA has the responsibility to
carry out the mission.
♦ Operational Concept: Launch crew, lunar lander, and return
vehicle on multistage rocket into trajectory for moon. Crew will leave
return vehicle in lunar orbit while they take lunar lander to the moon
surface. Crew will return to lunar orbit and rendezvous with return
vehicle. Crew in return vehicle will land in ocean.
Space Systems Engineering: Scoping & ConOps Module 28
Crew Exploration Vehicle Scope Example

♦ Need: Provide crewed access to space once the Shuttle


is retired. Presidential vision for space exploration in 2004;
safety concerns with Shuttle post Columbia accident.
♦ Goal: Make access to space safer and cheaper than
current system.
♦ Objective: Support for all human space flight missions
post Shuttle.
♦ Mission or business case: Provide access to space
and Earth re-entry for missions to ISS, Moon and Mars.
♦ Assumptions: Separation of crew and cargo for launch
phase.
♦ Constraints: Deliver an operational vehicle no later than
2014; Minimize the gap with Shuttle retirement in 2010.
♦ Authority and Responsibility: CEV is to be
managed by NASA with no international involvement.
♦ Operational Concept:
Launch...Rendezvous…Docking…Transfer…Re-entry…
Space Systems Engineering: Scoping & ConOps Module 29
Heilmeier Catechism
• What is the problem to be addressed? Needs
• What motivates interest? Why is it hard? Why is it important?
• How is it done today, by whom, and what is wrong with it?
• How do you propose to address it? Goals
• What’s the new idea here, and why can we succeed now but not before?
• What recent breakthroughs now make this possible? Objectives
• What is the impact if successful?
• Who cares and what is the quantified value if successful?
• What is your plan and approach? Mission
• How will the program be organized?
• What are the biggest challenges and why?
• What are the risks and costs? Cost and
• How long will it take? Why? Schedules
• What are the midterm and final exams?
• How will you measure progress? V&V
• How will you determine if the project should continue?
Heilmeier: A More Electric Aircraft Example
• What is the problem to be addressed?
• What motivates interest? Why is it
hard? Why is it important?
• Need: The airline industry is
changing
• More avionics, safety, amenities:
increased demand for power
• Increasing fuel prices and
environmental concerns: increased Commercial Aircraft Power per Seat for Conventional, More
Electric, and New Aircraft Concepts [McCloughlin, 2009]
demand for efficiency
• Traditional technologies: increasingly
difficult to improve capacity and
efficiency
Michael K. Sinnett (Boeing):
“pneumatic systems growth ‘tapped out’
around 1995. At the moment, the
performance of pneumatics and electrics is
roughly similar, but electrics are poised for
growth and pneumatics are not.”

ICAO Environmental Report 2013


Heilmeier: A More Electric Aircraft Example
• Goal: Focus on subsystem efficiency
• How is it done today, by whom, and what is wrong with it?

• Current aircraft use a hybrid of mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric power


• Power conversions lead to power losses
• Pneumatic off-takes affect engine efficiency
• Pneumatic ECS and IPS require lower temperatures and pressures than those provided by
engine off-takes
• Current power supply and generation technologies are unlikely to be able to
provide enough power for all on-board systems in future large civil aircraft
• Can we learn something from hybrid/electrics cars?
Heilmeier: A More Electric Aircraft Example
• How do you propose to address it?
• What’s the new idea here, and why can we succeed now but not before?
• What recent breakthroughs now make this possible?

• More-Electric Aircraft Subsystems


• Modern solid state electronics provide the potential for low cost, low weight
control and distribution of electrical power
• Electric sub-systems are anticipated to be more efficient users of energy than
conventional pneumatic or hydro-mechanical systems
• Electric sub-systems provide a potential simplification in aircraft maintenance and
service through the elimination of hydraulic and pneumatic leaks
Heilmeier: A More Electric Aircraft Example
• What is the impact if successful?
• Who cares and what is the quantified value if successful?

• Airlines will save on fuel and potentially maintenance costs


• Aircraft manufacturers will be able to sell more new aircraft
• Aircraft emissions will be reduced complying with regulatory agencies
• Non-pneumatic ECS has the potential to provide a more comfortable cabin
environment for travelers
Heilmeier: A More Electric Aircraft Example
• What is your plan and approach?
• How will the program be organized?
• Right now individual partial efforts by various manufacturers
• Boeing 787 (ECS and IPS)
• F-35 (actuation)…
• What are the biggest challenges and why?
• Technologies are new
• At what point are they mature enough?
• How much uncertainty in their impact can be accepted?
• Will certification imposed requirements nullify benefits?
• Within conventional architectures, electric technologies yield only a fraction of their
potential benefit
• How to achieve full benefit without compounding the risks of MANY new technologies?
• How do we insure proper integration for maximum benefit?
• What are the risks and costs?

Michael K. Sinnett (Boeing chief engineer for 787 systems):


"When we decided on electric pressurization, it lowered aircraft empty weight 1,000-2,000 lb. and fuel burn
was down several percent," Sinnett says. "But the numbers got muddied as the 787 got integrated. It's hard
to say where the weight has gone."
Heilmeier Catechism
• What is the problem to be addressed? Needs
• What motivates interest? Why is it hard? Why is it important?
• How is it done today, by whom, and what is wrong with it?
• How do you propose to address it? Goals
• What’s the new idea here, and why can we succeed now but not before?
• What recent breakthroughs now make this possible? Objectives
• What is the impact if successful?
• Who cares and what is the quantified value if successful?
• What is your plan and approach? Mission
• How will the program be organized?
• What are the biggest challenges and why?
• What are the risks and costs? Cost and
• How long will it take? Why? Schedules
• What are the midterm and final exams?
• How will you measure progress? V&V
• How will you determine if the project should continue?