2

Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO)

Setting the Environment for Industry-Consensus Standards

September 2013

Bernie CollinsODNI/AT&F

3

SUMO Agenda

Introduction

Outreach and Support: Government

Outreach and Support: Industry

Cost Savings and Other Benefits

Transition Plan

4

Space Universal MOdular Architecture (SUMO)

SUMO Certified Components

Space Universal MOdular architecture

SUMO

Plug & Play

Standards Process

Collaboration

ODNI

NRO

Industry

AFRL

SMC

NASA

Transition Plan

Goal: Reduce the cost of satellites and help the US industry be more responsive in a growing international space market

What: Interoperability of satellite components through universalized environments and standardized data and electrical interfaces

How: Leverage existing & evolving standards to help US industry coalesce around industry consensus standards (which could become international)

US Space Industrial Base• More Competitive

Internationally• Larger Addressable Market• Less Time to Market/Orbit• Increased Innovation

US Government Buyer• Reduced Acquisition Costs• Enhanced Capabilities

5

Modular Bus with Open Interfaces

Component Interfaces Defined by the Application

Component Interfaces Defined by Industry Consensus

Supplier A

Supplier B

Prime X

Prime Y

Supplier CPrime Z

Catalog, Common, or Custom Bus

Supplier A

Supplier B

Prime X

Prime Y

Supplier C Prime Z

OR

OR

OR

OR

OR

OR

6

Software Layering Diagram

SUMO defines the interfaces through

industryconsensus

7

Tenets for Success

• Leverage Existing Standards and Think Global

• Space Industry Consensus

• Avoid Commoditization – Protect Intellectual Property

• Natural Break-In Points for Gradual Introduction– Avoid disrupting current programs

8

Industry:Platform

CommonalityFramework

Industry:SPA Variants

SUMO Evolutionary Path

SMC:MONA and SNAP

forHosted payload

interfaces

ORS:MSV

Risk Reduction Opportunities

$50MNASA:

Common Instrument

Interface

AFRL:MONARCH

(SPA)$130M

DARPA:F6

ExperimentOpportunities

$300M

NASA:Core Flight Executive

$12M,20 Missions

Industry:Time-Triggered

GigabitEthernet

Industry:Integrated Modular

Architecture

NASA:SpaceAge Bus

$4M, 13 Missions

Leverage past and present government and industry investments to progress from proprietary, custom architectures to modular, open network architectures

Industry:Universal

QualificationEnvironments

Industry:IRAD

>$100M

AFRL:NGSIS

Collaboration Fora:

EXISTING:

- Integrated Transition Team- SUMO Special Interest

Group*- CCSDS Spacecraft

Onboard Interface Services

- One-on-one technical interchanges

DEFINED:- Letter of Intent- Space Industrial Base

Council Working Group- DPA Title III Presidential

Determination

DEVELOPING:- Cooperative R&D

Agreements- Consortium for Space

Industry Standards

*http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uspacesig

On-going Initiatives Have Many Similarities

9

Space Avionics Open Interface Architecture (SAVOIR)*

SAVOIR: an undertaking led by space European Agencies and Industries aiming at promoting Space Avionics based on Open Interfaces

• In its first phase, SAVOIR has federated the space avionics community around the concept of reference architectures, standard interfaces, and generic specifications

•SAVOIR second phase includes the refinement of reference architectures, the elaboration of a product portfolio, and the production of two sets of generic specifications

•The maturity and completeness of the SAVOIR concept will be assessed by building lab demonstrators integrating a consistent set of items

*From ESA Website (http://www.congrex.nl/11c22/)

10

Business Case from Cost Analysis• Aerospace Corp modeled US Satellite

Market to quantify savings on cost of bus– Model included capture rate, technology

insertion, obsolescence, integration complexity, organizational complexity, etc.

– Model reviewed twice by ODNI CAIG• Findings:

– Over 17 years and 442 satellites• Savings was $18.8B (29%)• Payback Period was 9 Years

– Commercial space has the greatest savings due to high volume (learning)

– Government savings reduced by low volume (learning) and organizational complexity

• Not all SUMO benefits were monetized– Net present value through ease of

reconfigurability should increase

LEO 3-4, GEO 1-2 Government & Commercial Business Case (100% Capture)

Potential Total Cost Savings is 29%

Cost Savings by Sponsor ($M)Key Assumptions:• 100% Capture Business Case (Bus only)• Government (3 organizations) + commercial satellites (1

organization)• Government develops satellte bus separately from

commercial satellte bus• LEO 3, LEO 4, GEO 1 and GEO 2 only• 442 satellites over 17 years• Satellite build = 5 to 7 yearsResults:• Business Case Closes • Payback Period= 9 Years(FY22)• Total Cost Savings = $18.8B• Cumulative Costs Savings = 29%

Component Style SV Class (Component Qty per SV) 1 Year 20 Years

LEO1 LEO2 LEO3 LEO4 GEO1 GEO2 Total Total

Torque Rods

Style A 3 17 330Style B 3 4 72Style C 3 34 684Style D 3 7 138

Reaction Wheel/CMGs

Style A 3 17 330Style B 3 4 49 984Style C 4 9 184Style D 4 59 1184Style E 4 27 544

Sun SensorsStyle A 6 33 660Style B 6 6 6 6 6 219 4380

MagnetometersStyle A 1 6 110Style B 1 2 2 29 572

Star TrackersStyle A 1 6 120Style B 1 2 2 2 2 72 1436

IMUsStyle A 1 6 110Style B 1 2 2 2 2 72 1436

GPS ReceiversStyle A 1 6 110Style B 1 2 2 29 572

Transponders Style A 1 1 2 2 2 2 77 1546

Integrated CDH Style A 4 5 6 8 8 8 288 5752

Processor Boards Style A 4 5 6 8 8 8 288 5752Solar Cells Style A 752 2372 2959 11090 9274 19895 338763 6775264Batt ery Cell Style A 1 2 2 13 24 28 606 12124Main Engine Style A 1 1 22 432Maneuver Thrusters Style A 6 6 130 2592RCS Thrusters Style A 4 4 4 8 12 12 350 7000

Avgerage Satellite Quantity Per Year 5.5 1.2 11.4 2.3 14.8 6.8

11

…a word about the Cost Model• Modeled full plug and play

– Industry has made clear they are not ready for full plug and play; SUMO cost analysis will differ but this model gives a first approximation of savings

• Modeled 5 to 7 years satellite bus acquisition– Industry feedback indicates 2 to 3 years is reasonable…would accelerate

crossover point• Modeled the costs of two full satellites

– New approach models delta costs on top of funded project…reduces upfront NRE• NRO not modeled to gain learning from commercial industry

– Commercial industry buying 20 satellites per year• Modeled increased organizational conflict as more participants engaged and

provided input– Reduced savings by 30%; realistic for the first decade but reasonable to expect

conflicts to be resolved over time (based on MilSTD-1553 experience)

An Average of 29% Savings on the Cost of a Bus is Significant

12

Potential Advantages Beyond Cost Savings• Mission Assurance• Increased Cost Sharing with Standard Interfaces for

Hosted Payload• Multi-mission Flexibility; Mission Reconfigurability• Reduced Build Schedule• Plug-n-play Enabled Innovation and Technology Insertion• Enhanced Monitoring and Anomaly Identification and

Resolution• Higher Data Rate Potential for New Capabilities and

Additional Revenue Stream

Industries Which Standardize Interfaces Often see Growth and Improved Performance

13

• Deputy Administrator, Ch Eng, Ch Tech, GSFC Administrator are very supportive. Representative to CCSDS.

• Iterating on SUMO Transition Plan, developed SpaceAGE Bus and Core Flight Executive

Goal: understand policy & budget drivers, and industrial base policy issues.Government Buyers & Stakeholders: Focus on affordability, responsiveness and ability to maintain programs of record during budget driven era.

NASA

Policy

DoD

Government Outreach and Support

IC

• AT&L is very supportive. Helping SUMO propose for Title-III funds.• AFSPC/CV is a “big fan of interface standards”.• SMC/XR is developing industry-driven MONA (a part of SUMO);

iterating SUMO transition plan. AFRL created SPA.• SMC also asked prime to investigate “universal” components

• PDDNI and ADNI/AT&F full support. Released CIG language.• NRO is looking for components which could be

“universalized”; conducted modular bus study.

• OSTP supporting SUMO. • NSC and OMB are very supportive.• DoC (including ITA and NIST) are engaged.

14

Collaboration with NASA, SMC, & NROUNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

How the Space Community Can Reap

the Benefits of Modular Open Network Architecture (MONA)

Dr. Roberta Ewart (SMC/XR)

8 April 2013

A Perspective from NASA on Standardization and Commonality

28SUMO Workshop Briefing

Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.govGlenn.P.Rakow@NASA.gov

Seeking strategies to influence industry to provide modular, open networked space capabilities

Developing approaches to overcome key challenges

Utilize innovative acq approaches and small, strategic investments

Business case must be acceptable to industry

Step-in/step-out influence

Goal of reducing cost on spacecraft w/o negatively impacting science return, system reliability, operations

Adopting an approach to leverage standards and create commonality in software, hardware, interfaces and tools

Approach is vendor agnostic, allows for evolution and technology insertion

A modular bus with standard, open interfaces will drive down NRE

A Unified Mindset with Collaborative Interaction Growing Across the Government

15

- Potential improvement on Return on Investment and Net Present Value- Also support buying services versus systems; Support hosted payloads- Encourage commercial best practices

Interaction through Request for Information (RFI) on FedBizOps, several SIA & AIA sponsored workshops, conferences, site visits, telecoms and questionnaires

Satellite Operators: Support

- Concerned about Reduced Profit; Suggested FFP acquisitions- Prefer to promote proprietary solutions; will comply if gov’t requires

SUMO- Need government funding to compensate for long term return (~ 9

years)- Very supportive of Common Qual Environment; ready to engage- Also support Stable requirements; Risk tolerance

Industry Outreach and Support

Primes & Integrators: Conditionally Support

Component Manufacturers: Strongly Support

- Stabilize the industrial base; lower NRE; improve competitiveness- Common processes (testing) for hardware will expand margins- Avoid commoditization; prefer implementation on new products- Interface standards reduce barriers to market entry

- Somewhat biased; confirmed that SUMO is technically feasible and can reduce costs and assembly times

Satellite Integration Subs: Strongly Support

- Buy services versus systems; learn from commercial buyers

- More dialogue with industry

End to End (E2E) Service Providers: Ambivalent

Industry unanimously noted that government commitment and funding is needed.

16

Why Many in Industry Support SUMO*•Bus design with interoperable components allow design emphasis on payload technologies•Suppliers can increase their production rates, margins and performance•Common qualification environments diminishes inventory risk, and improves quality•Increased use of fixed priced contracts for bus allows primes more latitude for controlling margins•Simplifies bus integration which allows innovation, reduces schedules and increases Net Present Value•Enhances global responsiveness through participation in international standards processes•Addresses cyber security risk•Public/private partnerships partially mitigate corporate upfront capital risk•Realistic, logical transition plan uses natural break-in points for gradual introduction•Interfaces will be carefully standardized to protect intellectual property and promote innovation•Step-in/step-out approach encourages industry-consensus standards and product differentiation

16

A modular, open architecture such as SUMO presents a Space Industry Dilemma

*Based on interviews and written responses

17

Notional SUMO Transition Plan • The Transition Plan is “notional” because it was created by a small,

experienced team; not yet by the executing agencies– Comprised of former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Deputy

Under Secretary for Space, Director of Space Transportation (NASA/HQ), Director of SIGINT Acquisition (NRO), VP of Space Systems, NASA Programs (Industry)

• Proposes Executive Coordination by Space Industrial Base Council– Comprised of DoD(AT&L), DNI/AT&F, USAF, NASA, NRO, MDA, NOAA

• Phased to achieve early gains with regionalized qualification environment while defining Architecture of Standards for interfaces

• Establishes role for certification agent and certification process• Progresses from interface definition to interface development to

bench test to demo flight to program of record• Plan tied to FYDP budget cycle; budget profiles aligned to sources

– Proposed sources include DPA Title III, Industry, and Executing Agents

18

Notional SUMO Transition Plan

B

B

2a/b - SUMO AoS & EDS Dev CCSDS (Qtrly)

2c - Certification Program• Define Process & Agent• Execute Certification

3 - Play Side of SUMO• Proto-Flight• Programs of Record (POR) S

S

INT’L

S

FY15 Bgt CycleFY16 Bgt Cycle

FY17 Bgt CycleFY18 Bgt Cycle

FY19 Bgt CycleFY20 Bgt Cycle

FY21 Bgt CycleFY22 Bgt Cycle

K/O

LOIs SIGNED

MoAsSIGNED

2d - Plug Side of SUMO• Demonstration Prgms (Bench)

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

DRFT AGNT FNL

1 - Regional Components

1 - Universal Components…D

…

D

D D

B D D…

…D D

ACQ…D D

SUMO-Next DRFT PLAN

FINAL PLAN

EXECUTION

FY Budget Cycle Windows

Universalization/CQE

K/OD D D

US SUMO & EDS R2

D

1st 5th 12th B = Submit BgtS = Start WorkD = Deliver

LEGEND

… = Multiple Deliveries

SUMO Objective

Starting

Initial

Partial

Full

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

FY20 FY21 FY22FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19CY19 CY20 CY21 CY22CY13 CY14 CY15 CY16 CY17 CY18

Exec Coord (SIBC)• Agency LOIs/MoAs• Agency Budget Coord (annual)

19

Way-Forward Highlights• Develop a Presidential Determination for Title III Funding• Getting agency engagement on near-term tasks including:

– Coordinating Letter Of Intent and developing a Memorandum of Agreement– Supporting Space Industrial Base Council (SIBC) Integrated Transition Team and

Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) forums with assigned personnel

– Expanding US SUMO Special Interest Group and Industry Consensus Fora• Coordinate with Agencies for Transition plan to include fiscal programming• Define and develop Regionalization/Universalization Common Qual

Environment initiatives• Gain AIAA (and CCSDS) engagement on leading three aspects of SUMO AoS

development– Electronic Data Sheets, Physical Electrical Interfaces, Data (SW Stack)

• Refine and Validate Budget analysis

Advance Stakeholders from “Interested” to “Committed by Action”

20

BACK UPS

21

EU Standardized External Power Supply

• In 2009 several government, consumer and industry initiatives resulted in the European Union's specification of a common External Power Supply (EPS) for use with data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU.– The "external power supply" is the AC power adapter that converts household AC electricity

voltages to the much lower DC voltages needed to charge a mobile phone's internal battery.– Although compliance is voluntary, a majority of the world's largest mobile phone

manufacturers have agreed to make their applicable mobile phones compatible with the EU's common External Power Supply.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_External_Power_Supply

22

The Market Leader’s Dilemma: Diminish an Existing Capability to Develop a New Capability?

Capability

Time

Adapted From: Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen

Period of Early Development

Period of Compounded Innovation

Period of Fine-tuning

Modular Bus is here

Custom Bus is here