implementation challenges for responsive space...

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’NeillResearch Assistant, Aeronautics and Astronautics


Zoe SzajnfarberResearch Assistant, Engineering Systems Division


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


Outline

Problem

Framing

Limitations of

LEGACY

approach

ORS as

potential

solution

Difficulty changing paradigm


Challenge

Characterization Contracts

ORS as disruptive innovation

Capability Utility

Way

ForwardCost-

centric

Value-

centric

Problem Framing


Problem Framing

Evolution to Current State

Limitations of “Legacy” Approach

1960’s Paradigm

13+ year design lives

(geosynchronous orbit)

(Sullivan 2005)

Design Life (years)


(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

Design Life (years)

“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


• 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


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


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


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)


Contracts

CapabilityUtility

Development Development

opportunityopportunity

Increased Increased

fundingfunding

New SystemsNew Systems

Way Forward


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


Cost Cost Cost

Increasing richness of comparison

Cost Comparison

Cost-based comparisons are only good differentiators

among similar architectures


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 architecturebenefit


lifecycle cost

Responsive

architecture

Cost, Benefit & Time Comparison

benefit

context #1

(projected)

context #2

(emergent)

context #3

(emergent)

beginning-of-life end-of-life

Pareto front

monolithic satellite responsive

constellation

responsive

constellation

Legacy architecture Responsive

architectures

Responsive

architectures


lifecycle cost

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

Pareto front

responsive

constellationmonolithic satellite

monolithic satelliteLegacy architecture

Legacy architectureResponsive

architectures

Summary

Contracts

Development

opportunity

Increased

funding Proof of potential

Ongoing Work

Market Dynamics Valuation

Techniques


CapabilityUtilityNew Systems

Value

simulation

CASPAR and SEAri are actively working to integrateeconomic, political, managerial and technical analysesto address these deeply interdisciplinary questions.

implementation challenges for responsive space...

Documents