Innovative Management of Student-Run Space Research Projects PI: Dr. Jeffrey A. Hoffman Professor of Aerospace Engineering - MIT Co-I: Col. John Keesee - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Slide1 l.jpg
Download
1 / 86

Innovative Management of Student-Run Space Research Projects PI: Dr. Jeffrey A. Hoffman Professor of Aerospace Engineering - MIT Co-I: Col. John Keesee Research Staff: Paul Wooster Graduate Student: James Whiting Presentation at 1st CPMR Fellows Conference 20 January, 2005 Columbia, MD.

Related searches for Innovative Management of Student-Run Space Research Projects PI: Dr. Jeffrey A. Hoffman Professor of Aerospace Engineering - MIT Co-I: Col. John Keesee

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Innovative Management of Student-Run Space Research Projects PI: Dr. Jeffrey A. Hoffman Professor of Aerospace Engineering - MIT Co-I: Col. John Keesee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

Innovative Management of Student-Run

Space Research Projects

PI: Dr. Jeffrey A. Hoffman

Professor of Aerospace Engineering - MIT

Co-I: Col. John Keesee

Research Staff: Paul Wooster

Graduate Student: James Whiting

Presentation at 1st CPMR Fellows Conference

20 January, 2005

Columbia, MD


Presentation outline l.jpg

Presentation Outline

  • Background and Motivation

  • Mars Gravity Project

  • Survey of Student Space Projects

  • Evaluation of NASA Processes

  • Suggestions for a NASA-wide Student Space Research Program

  • Future Plans


Background and motivation l.jpg

Background and Motivation

  • MIT has had significant student involvement in space projects

    • CDIO Capstone Courses (SPHERES, ARGOS, EMFF)


Slide4 l.jpg

SPHERES on KC-135 (Feb. 2000)


Slide5 l.jpg

3 DOF Testing of Multiple SPHERES

on MSFC Flat Floor (Oct. 2004)


Background and motivation6 l.jpg

Background and Motivation

  • MIT has had significant student involvement in space projects

    • CDIO Capstone Courses (SPHERES, ARGOS, EMFF)

    • MIT Rocket Team "formed in an effort to become the first student group to launch a rocket into space. Begun in 1998, the team has developed a new type of rocket engine, and is currently in the process of testing the engine design."


Slide7 l.jpg

MIT Rocket Team


Background and motivation8 l.jpg

Background and Motivation

  • MIT has had significant student involvement in space projects

    • CDIO Capstone Courses (SPHERES, ARGOS, EMFF)

    • MIT Rocket Team "formed in an effort to become the first student group to launch a rocket into space. Begun in 1998, the team has developed a new type of rocket engine, and is currently in the process of testing the engine design.”

    • Mars Gravity Biosatellite Project


Mars gravity biosatellite l.jpg

Mars Gravity Biosatellite


Slide10 l.jpg

Introduction

Science

Engineering

Management

Mars Gravity Biosatellite

To investigate the effects of Martian gravity on mammals

  • Biosatellite carrying 15 mice, in 0.38g artificial gravity environment

  • Five week mission in low Earth orbit launching in mid-2008

  • Reentry with rapid land-based recovery for post-flight analysis

  • First prolonged investigation of mammalian adaptation to partial gravity

  • Initially a joint effort among MIT, the University of Washington, and the University of Queensland, with increased industry partner involvement as program has developed

  • Superb educational value - over 300 students involved to date

  • Total mission cost estimated at approximately $30 million


Slide11 l.jpg

Deployment and Transition

Deorbit

Orbital experiment, 5 weeks

Launch

Entry, Descent, and Landing

Recovery and Analysis

Introduction

Science

Engineering

Management

Mission Profile


Slide12 l.jpg

~6 months @ -1.5% / mo

-18% to -45% BMD lossestotal

1.5-fold higher risk of fracture for every SD below age-matched population

For astronauts age 35-40, these losses represent a range of 2x to 6x increased fracture risk!

~6 months@ -1.5% / mo

Mars Mission: Bone Mineral Density

~18 months @ unknown rate

BMD-Bone Mineral Density

SD-Standard Deviation

(Looker, 1998; De Laet et al., 1997; Hoffman & Kaplan, 1997, Cummings et al, 2002)


Slide13 l.jpg

Science

Introduction

Engineering

Management

Scientific Objectives

In a suitable mammalian model, quantify the extent of the following effects seen as a result of extended exposure to Mars-equivalent levels of artificial gravity:

  • Bone loss

  • Muscular atrophy

  • Neurovestibular adaptation

  • Immunology & radiation effects

    … as compared to both microgravity and 1-g physiology, wherever possible.


Slide14 l.jpg

Science

Introduction

Engineering

Management

Science Design

  • Female BALB/cByJ mice

  • Individually housed

  • Adults, 15-20 weeks old

  • 15 animals for 35 days

    • Provides >90% statistical power for representative skeletal parameters

  • 2 hour recovery planned

  • Ground controls

    • Vivarium

    • Spacecraft Simulated

      • Rotational

      • Static


Slide15 l.jpg

Science

Introduction

Engineering

Management

Ongoing Development

  • Partial Load Suspension

    • Novel ground model for musculoskeletal adaptation to partial gravity

    • Correlates histology and in vivo strain data

    • Leverages collaborations with SUNY Stony Brook and NASA Ames

  • Murine Automated Urine Sampler

    • Extends NASA CPG urine preservative for autonomous animal waste collection

    • Post-flight biochemical analysis reveals time course of musculoskeletal adaptation

    • Development in conjunction with Payload Systems Inc. through SBIR-Phase I grant

  • Gondola Centrifuge

    • Vestibular effects of chronic rotation

    • Demonstrated feasibility of S/C spin-rate


Slide16 l.jpg

Centrifuge Study

r ≈ 36 cm

  • Key Parameters:

    • 8 Rotating, 8 Control mice

    • 6 week study

    • Adaptation vs. desensitization

    • Otolith vs. canal effects

    • General health condition

ω ≈ 34 rpm

1.07g

  • Demonstrated no significant contraindications for chronic 35-rpm rotation in female BALB/cByJ mice

65°

1.07g


Slide17 l.jpg

To Sun

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

Flight System Overview

1.2 m


Slide18 l.jpg

Atmospheric Processing System

Oxygen Tank

Water Reserve

Rodent Habitat

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

Payload Layout


Slide19 l.jpg

Rodent Habitat

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

Animal Support Module

  • Waste Removal

  • Video Monitoring

  • Water/Food Supply

  • 60 Air Changes/Hour

  • 12 Hour Lighting Cycle

  • Airflow Monitoring

  • Contaminant Control

  • Contingency Euthanasia


Slide20 l.jpg

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

Air Circulation Loop

Test Objectives:

  • Theoretical flow model verification

  • Rates and evenness of flow measurements

  • Pressure drops and optimal blower power measurements

  • Component weights, interface, and space constraints determination


Slide21 l.jpg

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

Entry, Descent, and Landing

Aft faring

Main chute

Drogue chute

Heat shield

Mortar & Pilot chute

Payload housing

Airbag arrangement (conceptual only)


Slide22 l.jpg

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

EDL Flight Phases

Mortar deployment of pilot

chute (~18km alt)

Drogue chute slows vehicle

to ~30m/s

Drogue chute deployed by

pilot and mortar

detachment

Main chute deployed by

drogue detachment

(~1500m alt)

TPS separated at main

chute deployment

Inflation of airbag

landing system

Landing of payload at

Woomera


Slide23 l.jpg

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

Spacecraft Bus


Slide24 l.jpg

Thermal Load from RV, Sun

Engineering

Introduction

Science

Management

Thermal Load Path

To Sun

Internal Support Truss

Light Band Separation System

Side Panel Radiator

Baseplate Radiator


Slide25 l.jpg

Propulsion/ACS/GNC

  • 3-axis attitude maneuvering capability using small hydrazine thrusters and sensor suite

  • GPS receiver for orbit determination

  • De-orbit:

    • 180 m/s delta-v

    • 3-axis control

    • Spin-stabilization being considered

    • Burn time of 5-8 minutes

    • 15-18 minutes from burn initiation to atmospheric interface at approx. 100km

    • Current pointing accuracy of 0.75º; sufficient to deorbit into landing zone


Slide26 l.jpg

C&DH/Communications/Power

  • Monitor all systems and transfer information

  • Communicate with ground stations using S-band antennas (max 6 hours between contacts)

  • Generate power with 4 solar panels

  • Provide power storage via Li-ion batteries

Universal Space Network Coverage 130º Cone Angle


Slide27 l.jpg

Diverse Student Team

  • Approximately 300 students involved to-date

  • Strong participation of women and other minorities traditionally underrepresented in Science and Technology


Slide28 l.jpg

Design courses

Undergraduate research

Graduate education

International exchanges

Summer internship program

Leadership training

Interdisciplinary advising

Joint Mass./Wash. Space Grant Initiative

Over 300 students involved to date

Over 50 advisors actively involved from academia, government, and industry

Management

Introduction

Science

Engineering

Workforce Development


Slide29 l.jpg

Exciting and informing the public are key elements of our mission

Approximately 1,500 students and public participants reached to date

Department Open Houses

Lectures at New England AIAA and National Space Society Boston Chapter

Alumni Club Talks

City Year Boston Spring Break Program

Cub Scout Pack Meetings

Pierce School Science Fest

Elementary and High School Visits

Scouting Merit Badge Workshops

MIT Mars Week Presentations

Yuri’s Night Events

Considerable media coverage and internet interest

Students inspiring students

Management

Introduction

Science

Engineering

Education/Public Outreach


Slide30 l.jpg

Incredible Opportunity

  • Major contribution to human Mars exploration

  • Tremendous opportunity for workforce development and public inspiration

  • Low overall cost

  • Rapid science return

  • A step we can take right now


New developments for mars gravity biosatellite project l.jpg

New Developments for Mars Gravity Biosatellite Project

  • Space Exploration Vision makes Mars Gravity Biosatellite much more important to NASA’s core mission.


Slide32 l.jpg

Keys to Exploration

Understanding partial-g artificial gravity

  • Requirements specification for spacecraft radius, angular velocity

Understanding Marshypogravity effects

  • Countermeasure development for surface operations

  • Rehabilitation scope


New developments for mars gravity biosatellite project33 l.jpg

New Developments for Mars Gravity Biosatellite Project

  • Space Exploration Vision makes Mars Gravity Biosatellite much more important to NASA’s core mission.

  • Cheaper access to space seems like it may actually happen, which will make student satellites much more affordable.


Falcon i rocket l.jpg

FALCON I Rocket


Slide35 l.jpg

Launch Vehicle

  • Payload unique requirements:

    • Access less than 48 hours prior to launch

    • Active during pre-launch and launch operations

  • Launch mass and volume:

    • 500 kg to 400km, i > 31º (for AU reentry)

    • 1.2m diameter by 2m tall cylinder

  • Launch from Cape Canaveral

  • Secondary ELV not likely due to unique req’s

  • SpaceX Falcon I ($6M) is baseline launch vehicle

    • Engineering to have launch option on OSP Minotaur (~$20M)

    • Co-primary on larger vehicle also possible


Our dilemma l.jpg

Our Dilemma

How should Mars Gravity Biosatellite

be managed if it is to become a real flight

project?

  • Risk Identification and Mitigation

  • Continuity

  • Other Project Management Skills


3 major types of student space projects l.jpg

3 Major Types of Student Space Projects

  • Projects managed through a class structure

    (at MIT: CDIO projects, like SPHERES)


3 major types of student space projects38 l.jpg

3 Major Types of Student Space Projects

  • Projects managed through a class structure

    (at MIT: CDIO projects, like SPHERES)

  • Projects with indefinite schedules

    (at MIT: Rocket Club)


3 major types of student space projects39 l.jpg

3 Major Types of Student Space Projects

  • Projects managed through a class structure

    (at MIT: CDIO projects, like SPHERES)

  • Projects with indefinite schedules

    (at MIT: Rocket Club)

  • Projects where professionals and students play significant roles

    (at MIT: Mars Gravity Biosatellite)


3 major types of student space projects40 l.jpg

3 Major Types of Student Space Projects

  • Projects managed through a class structure

    (at MIT: CDIO projects, like SPHERES)

  • Projects with indefinite schedules

    (at MIT: Rocket Club)

  • Projects where professionals and students play significant roles

    (at MIT: Mars Gravity Biosatellite)

  • Also many examples of students playing minor roles in major satellite projects (e.g. through internships, co-ops, etc.)


Typical challenges for student space projects l.jpg

Typical Challenges for Student Space Projects

  • Personnel turnover

  • Skill Base

  • Documentation

  • Risk Assessment and Mitigation

  • Proper mixture and integration of professionals and students

  • Funding

  • Lack of experience in project management


Survey of student space research projects l.jpg

Survey of Student Space Research Projects

  • Terriers (Boston University)

  • FalconSat (USAF Academy)

  • SNOE (U. Colo.)

  • CATSAT (UNH)

  • Bayernsat (Tech. Univ. Munich)

  • MIMIC (National Space Grant Project, w/ JPL)

  • MIT Rocket Team

  • Mars Gravity Biosatellite

  • MIT CDIO Projects


Questions on survey l.jpg

Questions on Survey

  • Personnel

  • Documentation

  • Reviews

  • Risk Assessment

  • Testing

  • Schedules

  • Cost

  • Success


Questions on survey44 l.jpg

Questions on Survey

  • Personnel

    • Mix of students, professionals

      • Technical

      • Science

      • Management

    • Student commitment

      • Volunteer

      • Paid

      • Credit

    • Average duration of work commitment

    • Percentage of turnover every semester/year


Lessons from snoe 1 design of a low cost satellite l.jpg

Lessons from SNOE - 1Design of a Low Cost Satellite

  • Try to do it like a rocket experiment

  • Use project management experience from earlier projects

  • Choose important, focused scientific objectives

  • Collect the minimum amount of data necessary to achieve objectives

  • Use instruments that have been developed

  • Use a simple, spinning satellite

  • Use subsystems with lots of heritage, but use modern computer hardware


Lessons from snoe 2 areas of maximum student participation l.jpg

Lessons from SNOE - 2Areas of maximum student participation

  • Computer-aided drawing, design and analysis

  • Design and testing of flight computer software

  • Design, assembly and testing of solar panels and batteries

  • Testing and calibration of instruments using computers

  • Testing of integrated spacecraft using computer software

  • Operation of satellite in orbit using same computer S/W


Lessons from snoe 3 personnel l.jpg

Lessons from SNOE - 3 Personnel

  • LASP Professionals

    • 3 Scientists

    • 10 Engineers (3 near full-time, 7 part-time)

    • 2 entry-level professionals (former CU students)

    • Various support personnel

  • Students

    • 15 Graduate, 19 Undergraduate

    • Attrition

      • 7 students graduated, 19 hired since CDR

      • 9 left by graduation, several others moved to other projects

      • No resignations


Lessons from falconsat 1 l.jpg

Lessons from FalconSat -1

  • Project done as part of course requirement for cadets (Students get credit but no pay.)

    • 34 students (different majors)

      • 3 Management

      • 2 Computer Science

      • 3 Physics

      • 6 Space Operations

      • 20 Astronautical Engineering

    • Faculty support/oversight: 3 Physics, 8 Astronautical Engineering

    • Paid support personnel: 1 full-time machinist, 2 part-time electrical engineering technicians


Lessons from falconsat 2 l.jpg

Lessons from FalconSat -2

  • Complete student turnover every year (new senior class)

    • No transition - cadets interview for jobs during 1st class, are selected by 3rd class and usually are very knowledgeable about their positions by mid-term. Keep jobs in spring semester.

    • Student managers are from the management department (interview for management vs. technical positions)

  • Typical time commitment ~15 hr per week

  • Motto: “Cadets learn space by doing space.”

    Cadets do the work, and the supervisors look over their shoulders.


Lessons from falconsat 3 l.jpg

Lessons from FalconSat -3

  • Documentation

    • Cadets really learn the importance of documentation, since all knowledge has to be passed from class to class.

    • All documents kept on web page/network drive. Documents are reviewed by the faculty for thoroughness.

  • Reviews

    • Cadet teams must give internal reviews every 5 lessons.

    • All major program reviews (PDR, CDR, TRR, etc.) held with outside visitors.

    • For all major reviews, have management review meeting and chief engineer meeting every 2 weeks with launch provider/government oversight/integrating contractor (Boeing)


Lessons from falconsat 4 l.jpg

Lessons from FalconSat -4

  • Management Tools

    • Quicken for ordering and budget analysis

    • Microsoft Project for schedule

    • PowerPoint/Word for presentations and reports

    • Web page and shared network drive for programmatic information

    • Main information problem - keeping files neatly organized

  • Testing and Prototyping

    • Conceptual and Preliminary Designs were theoretical

    • Prototyping started with engineering model, used for testing in each of subsequent phases.

    • Satellites were thermal vacuum and vibration tested to flight loads.

    • Thorough testing was the main risk mitigation strategy.

  • Cost was never an issue; finances were adequate; no overruns


Lessons from falconsat 5 l.jpg

Lessons from FalconSat -5

  • Success - FalconSat 1 was launched as a secondary payload on an expendable and operated successfully. FalconSat 2 was designed for the Shuttle, and its launch is uncertain.

  • Main Purpose of Satellites - To test future systems

    • New avionics

    • Gravity Gradient boom

    • Micropulsed plasma thruster

    • Shock ring to dampen launch loads

    • Plasma sensors


Not all student projects are successful catsat l.jpg

Not all student projects are successful:CATSAT

  • UNH-led collaboration (part of UNEX program, as was SNOE)

  • Work done by students as part of coursework, as was FalconSat; however, management did not succeed in achieving continuity of effort. (Insufficient documentation)

  • No work outside academic year. Slow progress. (Insufficient faculty resources? Lack of military discipline?!)

  • Eventually got help from MIT Center for Space Research, but too late to recover schedule.

  • GSFC brought in to “rescue” project, but additional ~$20M cost estimate was too high, and project was cancelled.


Bayernsat 1 l.jpg

BayernSat - 1

  • Collaboration of Technical University of Munich and German aerospace industry.

  • Started January, 2004; launch 2006-2007

  • Primary Purpose - Technology Testbed

    • Public Outreach component

    • Extensive use of telepresence

      BayernSat takes pictures of the Earth and sends them via a relay satellite to the Earth, where they are published on television and on the Internet. Internet users are allowed to remotely control the cameras of BayernSat.

  • 40 cm. Cubic shell, 50 kg.

  • Work together with industry

    • Industries build “new” H/W and give to TUM for testing

    • “Standard” H/W (e.g. gyros) must be bought


Bayernsat 2 l.jpg

BayernSat - 2

Personnel:

  • At any time, ~15-20 people at TUM working on project

    • Some doing semester work (if students don’t show up, they are dropped).

    • Some doing Diploma-Thesis work (~MS)

      These people work ~full-time for 8-12 months. They are “backbone” of project.

    • 3 students using BayernSat as Ph.D. thesis; expect 3-4 year commitment.

    • Project lead is a Post-Doc, hired for 6 years

  • Quality Control

    • Project lead responsible for QC

    • Phase A,B,C,D reviews, just like “normal” projects

    • Industry and other universities invited for reviews


Bayernsat 3 l.jpg

BayernSat - 3

  • Paperwork

    • A “living document” system is kept on server so everyone can contribute.

    • Configuration control is responsibility of project lead

  • Industry Participation - Industry is pushing project, because they will benefit

  • BayernSat Project Partners:Astrium GmbH; CAM Computer Anwendung für Management GmbH; Diehl VA Systeme; DLR; DomoTV; IABGmbH; Kayser Threde GmbH; OES Optische und Elektronische Systeme GmbH; Rolf Heine Hochfrequenztechnik; Firma Spinner GmbH; STT SystemTechnik GmbH; Tecnotron GmbH


Documentation and risk management in successful student projects l.jpg

Documentation and Risk Managementin Successful Student Projects

  • All projects had progressive reviews.

    • PDR, CDR, TRR, LRR, …

    • Phase A, B, C, D, …


Documentation and risk management in successful student projects58 l.jpg

Documentation and Risk Managementin Successful Student Projects

  • All projects had progressive reviews.

    • PDR, CDR, TRR, LRR, …

    • Phase A, B, C, D, …

  • All projects developed a system of documentation to ensure continuity and traceability.


Documentation and risk management in successful student projects59 l.jpg

Documentation and Risk Managementin Successful Student Projects

  • All projects had progressive reviews.

    • PDR, CDR, TRR, LRR, …

    • Phase A, B, C, D, …

  • All projects developed a system of documentation to ensure continuity and traceability.

  • All projects had a risk management and testing program.


Documentation and risk management in successful student projects60 l.jpg

Documentation and Risk Managementin Successful Student Projects

  • All projects had progressive reviews.

    • PDR, CDR, TRR, LRR, …

    • Phase A, B, C, D, …

  • All projects developed a system of documentation to ensure continuity and traceability.

  • All projects had a risk management and testing program.

  • BUT…


Documentation and risk management in successful student projects61 l.jpg

Documentation and Risk Managementin Successful Student Projects

  • All projects had progressive reviews.

    • PDR, CDR, TRR, LRR, …

    • Phase A, B, C, D, …

  • All projects developed a system of documentation to ensure continuity and traceability.

  • All projects had a risk management and testing program.

  • BUT…

    The reviews, documentation, reliability and testing programs were tailored to the individual projects. “One size doesn’t fit all!”


Documentation and risk management in successful student projects62 l.jpg

Documentation and Risk Managementin Successful Student Projects

  • All projects had progressive reviews.

    • PDR, CDR, TRR, LRR, …

    • Phase A, B, C, D, …

  • All projects developed a system of documentation to ensure continuity and traceability.

  • All projects had a risk management and testing program.

  • BUT…

    The reviews, documentation, reliability and testing programs were tailored to the individual projects.

  • This flexibility is a challenge for traditional NASA management.


Evaluation of nasa processes 1 l.jpg

Evaluation of NASA Processes - 1

  • Document referred to is SMEX Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance Requirements, prepared by the NASA/GSFC Explorer Program Office in support of the Small Explorer (SMEX) Announcement of Opportunity Process, issued 27 December, 2002.

  • Fundamental philosophy is “The Principal Investigators will be responsible for all aspects of their missions, including Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance (SR&QA).”

  • “This approach maximizes the use of existing and proven PI team processes, procedures, and methodologies.”Recognizes “a wide variation in complexity, size, and technology for the mission, which can affect program risks and costs. In addition, the capabilities of investigators and their partners and subcontractors vary widely.”

  • Although these words were aimed at professional research groups, they definitely apply to student-run projects.


Evaluation of nasa processes 2 l.jpg

Evaluation of NASA Processes - 2

Positive Aspects of the Guidelines

  • It is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator to plan and implement a comprehensive SR&QA program for all flight hardware, software, Ground Support Equipment (GSE), and mission operations.

  • Only limited mission assurance insight is planned by the Explorer Program Office.

  • Deliverable documentation will be significantly reduced.

  • The Explorer Program Office is prepared to assist the Principal Investigator in any aspect of mission assurance, and to be the PI’s focus for ready and regular access to the Goddard Space Flight Center’s mission assurance expertise.


Evaluation of nasa processes 3 l.jpg

Evaluation of NASA Processes - 3

Problem - Implementation is not always consistent with philosophy

  • “It is intended that Principal Investigators tailor their SR&QA programs in accordance with ISO 9001 series standards.”- large impact on small group; questionable cost/benefit ratio

  • Subtle shift in language: “A Continuous Risk Management (CRM) methodology must be used that identifies existing or emergent technical and programmatic risks, statuses them in the format established by GSFC management, evaluates mitigation efforts, and retires them or carries residual risks forward.”- control clearly rests with NASA, with limited PI flexibility.

  • Frequency and Number of Reports: “Assurance Status Reports will be part of the regular, monthly reporting by the Principal Investigator to the Explorer Program Office and will summarize the status of all assurance activities and report on any discrepancies (including corrective actions) that could affect the performance of the investigation.”- overly frequent reporting can devastate small projects. Reporting requirements should be aligned to size and complexity of project.

  • Audits: “The Principal Investigator is required to plan and conduct audits of his/her internal mission assurance systems and those of his/her subcontractors and suppliers, examining documentation…, operations and products. The Principal Investigator is required to generate and maintain a report for each audit.”- audits are a recognized, valuable activity, but again, frequency and number must be appropriate for size and complexity of project.


Evaluation of nasa processes 4 l.jpg

Evaluation of NASA Processes - 4

  • Risk Management - Closeout of Hazard Reports

    • HETE2 example (requirement for full documentation vs. qualified engineering judgment)

  • Reviews:

    Requirements Review

    Concept Review

    Preliminary Design Review

    Critical Design Review

    Pre-Environmental Review

    Pre-Ship Review

    • Operations Readiness Review

    • Flight Readiness Review

  • Additional Reviews:

    • Independent NASA IIRT reviews, now including the … Red Team review activity

    • Confirmation Review

      Control clearly with NASA. Experience shows strong resistance to PI flexibility within NASA.


Evaluation of nasa processes 5 l.jpg

Evaluation of NASA Processes - 5

  • True flexibility in the relationship between NASA and student groups is even more critical than between NASA and PIs. The nature of the relationship is different, because of the reduced experience students have compared to typical PIs. However, the basic goal of reducing the paperwork for research groups is every bit as important, perhaps more so in view of the constrained budgets and personnel most student groups have to work with.

  • NASA needs to recognize two goals for student space projects: scientific and educational. To the extent that student projects are serving an educational purpose, the cost in terms of potential failure of assuming a higher level of risk should be book kept as an educational expense. However, increased paperwork does not universally translate into a lower risk, and the need for increased flexibility for small space science experiments applies both to PI and to student projects.


How is the mars gravity biosatellite project dealing with these issues l.jpg

How is the Mars Gravity Biosatellite Project Dealing with these Issues?


Slide69 l.jpg

Management

Introduction

Science

Engineering

Project History

  • Project inception: August 2001

  • Less than $750K spent to date, while completing three engineering reviews (9/02, 1/03, 8/03), two science reviews (11/01, 4/03), and significant hardware prototyping and testing

  • Assembled a large, dedicated team of primarily volunteer students (300 involved to date)

  • Raised $1.4M in funding and in-kind donations

  • Secured $2.25M commitment for launch on-board SpaceX Falcon I

  • Transitioning from primarily student effort to combined effort of students and professionals


Slide70 l.jpg

Management

Introduction

Science

Engineering

Student and Professional Collaboration

  • The MIT Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) and Payload Systems, Inc. (PSI), have successfully conducted a series of space missions involving a mix of students and professionals

  • This experience has shown:

    • Initially the work should be performed primarily by students with a small amount of professional advising

    • As a mission moves into detailed design and hardware fabrication, the level of professional involvement should increase

  • The Mars Gravity program is drawing from this experience and adopting a similar approach


Slide71 l.jpg

Phase C,D,E Project Organization

NASA Exploration

Systems

Project Director

David Miller-SSL

Project Advisory Board

(From Major Partners)

Project Manager

Paul Wooster-SSL

Science PIs

Project Scientist

Erika Wagner-MVL

Business Mgmt

Bill Mayer-CSR

Project Engineer

Bob Goeke-CSR

Information Systems

Reliability and

Q/A Manager

Brian Klatt-CSR

GN&C, EDL V+V

Piero Miotto-CSDL

Finance and Procurement

Education/Public Outreach

Payload

Parrish-PSI

Heafitz-SSL

S/C Bus

Doty-CSR

EDLS

Morgan-UQCH

Launch Vehicle

SpaceX

Operations

de Luis-PSI

SSL – MIT Space Systems LabMVL – MIT Man-Vehicle Lab

CSR – MIT Center for Space ResearchPSI – Payload Systems, Inc.

ARA – Applied Research AssociatesCSDL – C.S. Draper Laboratory

UQCH – Univ. of Queensland Centre for Hypersonics


Slide72 l.jpg

Management

Introduction

Science

Engineering

Programmatic Risk Mitigation

  • Unproven Falcon Launch Vehicle

    • Falcon will have launched prior to our flight

    • Have fall-back option using Minotaur (proven, although has cost and schedule impact)

  • Distributed team with substantial student involvement

    • Involving professionals with spaceflight experience directly in design and integration

    • Team has experience in using students effectively in space systems development and working in multi-institution setting

  • Inherent cost and schedule uncertainty

    • Use HETE-based streamlined management process

    • Develop more detailed schedule, budget estimate for mission implementation during next phase


Slide73 l.jpg

Benefits to NASA

  • The Mars Gravity Biosatellite mission, in a cost-effective manner, helps NASA to:

  • Gather initial data on effects of Martian gravity on mammals, preparing for human Mars missions

  • Determine need for additional 0.38g research and potential reduced gravity countermeasure development

  • Inform decisions on role of artificial gravity for Project Constellation Spiral II and beyond

  • Provide a rapid, tangible response tothe President’s exploration agenda

  • Inspire the next generation and trainthe NASA workforce of tomorrow


Student space research program 1 l.jpg

Student Space Research Program - 1

  • Purpose of SSRP: Enable more student space research projects

    • Workforce development through student involvement in research

      Allow students to “touch space”.

    • Take advantage of expected low-cost launchers to increase research and development

  • Provide assistance to students in 4 key areas:

    • Starting new projects

    • Project Management

    • Funding

    • Collaboration and Advising


Research project 5 cross cutting theme l.jpg

Research Project 5Cross Cutting Theme

Challenges:Education vehicle for PPM training at the University level (undergraduate/graduate)

  • How does education and value-added of existing, new, tool sets and methodology create better PPM ?

    • Research, tool validation

    • Education and training

  • Develop Standardized Systems Management

  • Education vehicle for PPM training at the University level (undergraduate/graduate)

    • Curriculum development to address

    • Impact of Government/industry sponsorship of University projects

    • Appropriate interaction between experiential education versus formal education

    • What are the best ways to integrate PPM lessons into hands-on projects

    • Metrics involved in tracking/measuring effectiveness of PPM training

Objective:

Rationale:

  • To impact and affect continued education, including individual growth via education and training with insight and viability into the decision-making process


Slide76 l.jpg

Recommendation 2 Rank: High Priority

Challenge: Recruitment, motivation, and training of a diverse range of young project managers and systems engineers into the NASA, contractor, and international space working environment.

Research Objectives/Questions: Track career choices of young post-docs and post-grads who are recipients of such experience. Identify reasons why they do or do not emerge as candidate PM/SM’s in NASA (and ESA) space missions. Consider the cost effectiveness and timeliness of this potential training route.

Rationale: Small mission, space science instrumentation programs and balloon experiments provide a fertile training ground in the university sector (and in research departments of national laboratories and NASA Centers).

The age profile of the NASA and DOD cadre of PM/SMs indicates that the shortage of this skill base will become acute within the current decade.

CPMR WorkshopKnowledge, Learning, Expertise WG


Slide77 l.jpg

Recommendation 3 Rank: High Priority

Challenge: Recruitment, motivation and training of the new generation with good project management skills.

Research Objectives/Questions: What types of programs are most effective at training good PMs? What types of incentives can be provided to motivate the necessary persons to participate in these programs?

Rationale: If NASA is to successfully meet its staffing needs in the future, it will need to attract more people into the aerospace industry than are currently self-selected. Research into which programs are most effective for recruiting in each key age group where career decisions are made is important. We identified 5 stages: k-6, 7-12, undergraduate, post-grad, career.

Action for USRA: We also noted that the first 2 stages are beyond the USRA/APPL scope, but the issue of exciting young people in science and engineering through projects should be addressed within the context of NASA’s EPO effort. We also note that engineering is under represented in current EPO programs. Interface to NASA Education Directorate.

CPMR WorkshopKnowledge, Learning, Expertise WG


Student space research program 2 l.jpg

Student Space Research Program - 2

  • Starting new projects

    • Organize and provide “Starter Kit” - information about:

      • Recruiting students

      • Finding funding

      • Managing students

      • Managing information

      • Access to lessons learned

    • Provide Management Education (CPMR goal)

      • Short courses

      • Internships

      • Mentors


Student space research program 3 l.jpg

Student Space Research Program - 3

  • Project Management Assistance

    • Information management tools - essential to handle high student turnover, which can lead to loss of information. (Many students are more interested in working with hardware than with management.)

    • SSRP maintains data base of all documentation for projects it supports. This will facilitate review by NASA and outside advisors.

    • To the extent permissible for proprietary reasons, reviews of documents and suggestions could be circulated among other participating student teams as part of the educational process.

    • NASA should be able to procure commercial project management software more economically for a large number of student groups.


Student space research program 4 l.jpg

Student Space Research Program - 4

  • Create a “Funding Ladder”

    • Multi-level funding to encourage large number of projects.

    • Small funding for large number of projects

    • Progressively larger funding for smaller number of projects

    • Require student participation in NASA management seminars and internships for progression to higher funding level

  • Assist teams in soliciting in-kind support from private industry.

  • Organize “IDIQ” supply chain for standard hardware

  • Open-source development network for space projects (similar to the open-source software development world’s “sourceforge.net”)


Student space research program 5 l.jpg

Student Space Research Program - 5

  • Collaboration and Advising

    • SSRP organizes network of experienced NASA advisors

    • Encourage private industry to provide advisors; integrate into same network.

      • Industry will benefit from developing student management experience.

      • Identify good students for internships and full-time hiring

    • Encourage cooperation among universities

  • Support flexibility in requirements imposed on student projects.


Student space research program 6 l.jpg

Student Space Research Program - 6

  • Project Selection

    • SSRP could generate a list of research projects of interest to various NASA programs.

    • Smaller projects than satellites could provide introductory management experience for groups without previous spaceflight experience.

  • Note: Many NASA programs already aim at these goals. What is missing is an across-the-board, concentrated emphasis on the project management aspects of student research projects.


Future plans 1 l.jpg

Future Plans - 1

  • CPMR can play an important role in introducing management as an element in NASA’s student research programs.

  • We believe that our Phase I results can assist CPMR in this effort, and we look forward to helping.


Future plans 184 l.jpg

Future Plans - 1

  • CPMR can play an important role in introducing management as an element in NASA’s student research programs.

  • We believe that our Phase I results can assist CPMR in this effort, and we look forward to helping.

  • By itself, there is not enough research potential in this area to warrant pursuing a Phase II award solely to look at more student space research projects. Therefore, we do not intend to propose on our own for Phase II.


Future plans 185 l.jpg

Future Plans - 1

  • CPMR can play an important role in introducing management as an element in NASA’s student research programs.

  • We believe that our Phase I results can assist CPMR in this effort, and we look forward to helping.

  • By itself, there is not enough research potential in this area to warrant pursuing a Phase II award solely to look at more student space research projects. Therefore, we do not intend to propose on our own for Phase II.

  • However…


Future plans 2 l.jpg

Future Plans - 2

  • We believe that the research on “Modeling, Analyzing and Engineering NASA’s Safety Culture” being carried out by our MIT colleagues, Nancy Leveson and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, is relevant to student space research projects. CPMR should apply this research into any efforts to support student projects.

  • The challenge will be to provide tools for student groups to increase reliability and safety.

  • Adapting a systems safety model from a large-scale project like the Shuttle to small, student projects would be a good test case.

  • Having students use cutting-edge safety tools will help them carry an appropriate safety philosophy and experience into their future jobs.


  • Login