implementation challenges for responsive space...

Download Implementation Challenges for Responsive Space seari.mit.edu/documents/presentations/RS709_Richards_MIT.pdf

Post on 23-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Implementation Challenges for

    Responsive Space Architectures

    7th Responsive Space Conference

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1

    7th Responsive Space Conference

    AIAA-RS7-2009-2004

    Matthew G. Richards, Ph.D. Research Assistant, Engineering Systems Division

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    M. Gregory O’Neill Research Assistant, Aeronautics and Astronautics

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Zoe Szajnfarber Research Assistant, Engineering Systems Division

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Annalisa L. Weigel, Ph.D. Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics & Engineering Systems

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Outline

    Problem

    Framing

    Limitations of

    LEGACY

    approach

    ORS as

    potential

    solution

    Difficulty changing paradigm

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2

    Challenge

    Characterization Contracts

    ORS as disruptive innovation

    Capability Utility

    Way

    Forward Cost-

    centric

    Value-

    centric

  • Problem Framing

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3

    Problem Framing

  • Evolution to Current State

    Limitations of “Legacy” Approach

    1960’s Paradigm

    13+ year design lives

    (geosynchronous orbit)

    (Sullivan 2005)

    D e s ig n L if e ( y e a rs )

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4

    (geosynchronous orbit)

    • CORONA: 30-45 day missions

    • 144 spacecraft launched between 1959-1972

    • Inability to adapt to uncertain future requirements and environments (Wheelon 1997)

    Year

    D e s ig n L if e ( y e a rs )

    “Our spacecraft, which take 5 to 10 years to build, and then last up to 20 in a

    static hardware condition, will be configured to solve tomorrow’s problems

    using yesterday’s technologies.” (Dr. Owen Brown, DARPA Program Manager, 2007)

  • Difficulty Changing Paradigms

    Legacy

    • Monolithic

    • Single spacecraft for whole

    mission lifetime

    • Designed for what we think

    we will need

    Responsive

    • Small spacecraft

    • Several spacecraft over the

    lifetime of the mission

    • Designed for what we will actually

    need; can be adapted as needed

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5

    • Given that ORS addresses some key limitations of Legacy architectures

    • Research Questions:

    1. Why is the responsive space concept struggling to gain broader acceptance in the space community?

    2. What can be done to catalyze the transition?

  • Challenge Characterization

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6

    Challenge Characterization

  • ORS as Disruptive Innovation

    Limits to

    growth

    Current Current

    ApproachApproach Eventually Supersedes

    • 18 Challenges

    –– Generating Generating

    enabling enabling

    technologies (7)technologies (7)

    –– Overcoming Overcoming

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7

    NextNext

    ApproachApproach

    Initially

    inferior

    –– Overcoming Overcoming

    institutional institutional

    inertia (6)inertia (6)

    –– Demonstrating Demonstrating

    utility (5)utility (5)

  • Transition Challenges: InertiaInertia

    • The Contractors

    –– An inability for established firms to accommodate An inability for established firms to accommodate

    “Disruptive Innovation” “Disruptive Innovation”

    –– Economic stake of satellite contractors in the Economic stake of satellite contractors in the

    status quostatus quo

    • The Customer

    –– Government system program offices have become Government system program offices have become

    entrenched in an incremental evolutionary entrenched in an incremental evolutionary

    Legacy

    Responsive

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8

    entrenched in an incremental evolutionary entrenched in an incremental evolutionary

    philosophyphilosophy

    –– The “backThe “back--toto--basics” approach of DoD acquisitionsbasics” approach of DoD acquisitions

    • The Market

    –– Lack of corrective “market” mechanisms in the DoD Lack of corrective “market” mechanisms in the DoD

    enterpriseenterprise

    “We have to overcome ourselves in order to put this program into place

    and allow it to be successful,” (Hartman, C4ISR March 2009)

  • Transition Challenges: UtilityUtility

    Legacy

    Responsive

    “Culturally, DoD hasn’t determined that small satellites can have a whole lot of utility, […] So we’re going to struggle with that until we can actually produce something the [combatant commands] can use.” (Van Sant, C4ISR)

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9

    Contracts

    CapabilityUtility

    Development Development

    opportunityopportunity

    Increased Increased

    fundingfunding

    New SystemsNew Systems

  • Way Forward

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10

    Way Forward

  • • Challenge: Legacy and Responsive Architectures have different

    strengths and weaknesses. Traditional evaluation methodologies do

    not internalize full set of Responsive attributes.

    Broaden Analysis Scope to Enable

    “Fair” Comparison

    Benefit Benefit

    Time

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 11

    Cost Cost Cost

    Increasing richness of comparison

  • Cost Comparison

    Cost-based comparisons are only good differentiators

    among similar architectures

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 12

    lifecycle cost

    responsive

    architecture

    legacy architecture

  • Cost-based comparisons are only good differentiators

    between similar architectures

    Cost and Benefit Comparison

    Value-centric perspective enables unified evaluation of

    technically diverse system concepts

    Legacy architecture benefit

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 13

    lifecycle cost

    Responsive

    architecture

  • Cost, Benefit & Time Comparison

    benefit

    context #1

    (projected)

    context #2

    (emergent)

    context #3

    (emergent)

    beginning-of-life end-of-life

    P a re to f ro n t

    monolithic satellite responsive

    constellation

    responsive

    constellation

    Legacy architecture Responsive

    architectures

    Responsive

    architectures

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 14

    lifecycle cost

    Analyzing ORS vis-à-vis “Legacy” requires modeling value delivery over entire design life (i.e., changing contexts)

    P a re to f ro n t

    responsive

    constellation monolithic satellite

    monolithic satellite Legacy architecture

    Legacy architecture Responsive

    architectures

  • Summary

    Contracts

    Development

    opportunity

    Increased

    funding Proof of potential

    Ongoing Work

    Market Dynamics Valuation

    Techniques

    © 2009 by Richards, Szajnfarber et al. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 15

    CapabilityUtility New Systems

    Value

    simulation

    CASPAR and SEAri are actively working to integrate economic, political, managerial and technical analyses to address these deeply interdisciplinary questions.

Recommended

View more >