Transcript
OrionPDR Process -
What in the World Happened?
1
Charles ArmstrongNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationOrion VI&D Plans & Processes Managercharles.h.armstrong@nasa.gov281-244-6315
Tony ByersLockheed Martin Space Systems CompanySystems Engineering – Program Integration Manageranthony.w.byers@lmco.com303-977-4389
NASA PM Challenge 2010
Used with Permission
Project OrionProject Orion
Agenda
2
• Orion PDR Management Challenges• Planning• Execution
• Tenants of Operational Excellence• PDR Process• PDR Results• Key Lessons Learned• Tentative CDR Plan• Closing Remarks
Project OrionProject Orion
Management Challenges
3
• Planning Challenges• Develop and execute a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) process
that ensures NASA’s next generation spacecraft can meet all mission objectives and satisfy requirements with acceptable risk
• Develop a multi-tiered approach that ensures the integrated subsystems, modules and vehicle are reviewed to ensure the design approach is at a sufficient level of maturity to proceed to the detailed design phase.
• Balance thoroughness and schedule. The desire to review every aspect of the design down to the lowest possible level must be balanced against the available time to execute the review as to not delay the development activities unnecessarily.
• Balance inclusion and efficiency. Develop a process that ensures all stakeholders have an adequate time to participate and provide input helping to shape the design, ensure mission success, and ultimately provide a safe crew exploration vehicle.
Project OrionProject Orion
Management Challenges
4
• Execution Challenges• Communicate the expectations to a diverse 2000+ personnel
organization consisting of NASA, prime contractor (LM), and many support contractors
• Balance the desire to improve the design and need for a design baseline. From the time the PDR baseline is struck, a lot of potential energy develops to improve the requirements, architecture, design, and configuration. This energy must be managed to ensure that PDR products align as close as possible to the PDR baseline.
• Monitor and control process execution throughout the duration of the effort
Project OrionProject Orion
Operational Excellence
• Teamwork– Created a joint NASA/LM PDR Integration Team (PIT) to ensure common expectations are
communicated across the NASA, LM, and support contractor teams• Ensured key personnel from each Module and IPT were included on team• Enlisted the support of the Orion planning organizations
• Communication– Focused on communicating early and often– Conducted a series of TIMs with each of the subsystem leads to develop common
expectations and identify issues needing resolution prior to PDR– Instituted multiple statuses and forums targeting all stakeholders
• Commitment– With the goal of “Get it right the 1st time”, the Orion Management team routinely stressed
the importance of attaining the PDR level of design maturity– Management routinely communicated the PDR expectations and monitored status weekly–
• Accountability– Each Subsystem Lead took ownership of their respective Subsystem Design Review
preparation and execution– A detailed schedule was developed to manage the program DRD review and delivery– Detailed metrics were developed for tracking all deliverables by System and Subsystem
Project OrionProject Orion
PDR Process
6
Project OrionProject Orion
PDR Process & Data Package
• PDR Definition– A technically-focused design review which demonstrates that the preliminary system,
module and subsystem design of the Orion integrated vehicle, its concept of operations, associated processes and applicable technical plans meet all system requirements with acceptable risk and within cost and schedule constraints.
• PDR Process– The PDR process included a series reviews which provide a solid foundation for
determining if the current design is at PDR level of maturity. • 184 Technical Reviews• 104 Peer Reviews• 10 Combined Tech/Peer Reviews• 18 Subsystem Design Reviews• 1 System and Module Review• 8 RID Teams responsible for RID Screening & Disposition• 1 PDR Pre-Board• 1 PDR Board
• PDR Data Package– 170 DRDs delivered and reviewed– 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs provided to NASA for comment
Project OrionProject Orion
PDR Objectives
8
• Demonstrate that the Orion Project’s design baseline meets all Constellation Program and Orion system requirements to the subsystem level and does so with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints
• Ensure that all system requirements have been allocated to the component level, the requirements are complete, and flow down is adequate to verify system performance
• Ensure all physical and functional interfaces for Orion system and subsystem design have been identified and defined
• Demonstrate sufficient definition of integration and verification activities to allow the Project to proceed with detailed planning of test, integration, and the manufacturing of test articles
• Confirm that verification method requirements have been developed to the subsystem level and are consistent with the requirements and the vehicle design
• Demonstrate that the PDR vehicle configuration is a closed vehicle and within all specified margins
• Demonstrate that the vehicle hazards and hazard control methods are identified and assessed, including safety features of the design and crew survival features of the vehicle
Project OrionProject Orion
PDR Objectives
9
• Establish the preliminary design, thus enabling the Project to baseline subsystem specifications
• Ensure that technical and programmatic risks are identified, are categorized by criticality, and that risk mitigation plans are approved and are being managed
• Ensure that the Project is meeting cost and schedule baselines and has the infrastructure necessary to support management and reporting of cost and schedule data
• Show appropriate maturity in the proposed design approach to proceed to critical design
• Establish the basis and a viable path for proceeding to the Critical Design Review (CDR) including interim milestones
Project OrionProject Orion
PDR Entry & Success Criteria
10
• Performed a detailed analysis and mapping of Entrance and Success Criteria• Orion is required to meet both NASA NPR 7123.1A and LM 2.1.6-T1-PgmMgt-1.2-P-
C3 PDR Entrance and Success/Exit Criteria• Evaluated both sets of entrance and exit (success) criteria• Integrated into an “Orion” set of PDR Entrance and Success Criteria
• Documented in CxP 72212 Orion PDR Process Plan• Mapped PDR Products/DRDs to criteria• Criteria reviewed by all NASA and LM Module/IPT Leads, Subsystem Leads, and
key others prior to formal documentation in CxP 72212• Criteria reviewed and approved by LM SSC Central Systems Engineering
• NASA & LM IPTs developed a detailed self assessment against the entry and success criteria
• Allowed team to better resolve issues prior to the PDR Board• Assisted program management in documenting open issues needing to be resolved
post PDR
• First evaluation of PDR Entry and Success Criteria occurred at the PDR Pre-Board• Final evaluation of the Success Criteria occured at the PDR Board
Project OrionProject Orion
CxP 72212 Orion PDR Plan
11
• Comprehensive PDR plan documented in CxP 72212 and placed under configuration control
• All significant stakeholders participated in review of document prior to release
• Formalized the overall PDR process
• Documented the requirements and associated documentation baseline for PDR
• Incorporated tailored NPR 7123.1A criteria into plan
• Served as the primary method of documenting all agreements regarding method to meet the SSDR and PDR criteria
• Used as a reference throughout the execution to ensure the process was adhered to
12
2008 2009Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep
Project Orion
12
606E Closeout ERB
9/29,30& 10/2
Module MELs
Complete8/1
DAC-2
SBR
10/23 10/24
Test and Verification Activities
Integrated vehicle products on ProjectLink
1 week prior to ERB
10/29T-009, T-010 DAC-2
Analysis Reports Due to NASA
Avionics & Software Activities
S/C & Module Spec (DAC-2) 12/5
Safety & Mission AssuranceCSERP Groundrules TIM 10/1
Spiral Data Pkg Delivery
11/20Cradle Snapshot 8/15
8/15
Struct, Mech, Pyro, & TPS MEL Update
LOC/LOM ERB
C&T SRR 10/29C&T SS Review 12/4-5 Spiral
Review 12/7-11
Spiral Data Rev
Board 1/22/10
6-wk Asmts &DAC/PDR Planing DAC-3
DAC-3 POD ERB 11/19-209/9
Sys Integ Sys Integ
SWELs Complete
5/15
CloseoutERB 606G6/11&12
MidtermERB 606F
2/12-13
Integrated vehicleproducts available
Subsystem Design Reviews
S/C & Module Spec Development
Subsystem IRD & ICD Development
Master Verification Plan DevelopmentSubsystem Design and Databook Development
Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews
Sys Product Develop
T-008 SAPDelivered12/22
Subsystem Spec Development
11/3-7 Ph 1 TIM #1Ph 1 TIM #2 1/20-23 2/9-13 Ph 1
TIM #3
2 wk Sys & Mod Presentations
7/24
7/7Final PDR DRDs delivered to NASA
7/8T-009, T-010 DAC-3 Analysis Reports Due to NASA
Sizing / Subsystem FEMs LA4 FEM Develop
Ares LA4 Loads Analysis
Orion Uncoupled
Ares LC4 Loads AnalysisAres LC4 Results Final Drop 12/20
Orion LC-4 R&USzg
DAC-3 Initialization Loads (DAC-2 Loads + 6 wk Update for Landing, & Sec Environments)
Loads Update (Test Data Updates)
PDR LoadsStatus
Orion Uncoupled
Lunar Data Drop 8/14
SMR
1-wk DRDDelivery Margin
S/C, Mod, & AV&SW Spec(C&T & Mid-DAC-3) – 5/5
Integrated vehicleproducts available
Orion Uncoupled
Road to August 2009 PDR
LC5 FEM DevelopSizing / SS FEMOrion Rev & Update
Orion Uncoupled
KO7/13
2/28 Sys & Subsystems Cradle Snapshot
8/31All RIDs Dispositioned
DRD Rev & RID
2/24-27GN&C SSDR
Drawing Release
PDR Board8/31
Pre-Board
Loads Update (LC-4, Landing)
Update
Update
LoadsERB4/14
1/23 1/30
606F IntegratedProducts
3/24
3/30-4/3 Ph 1 TIM #4
5/4-8 Ph 1 TIM #5
6/15-26 Ph 1 TIM #67/27-8/7 CSERP
DeltaReview
AA-2 7/16PTR2
PA1 DD250 3/3EGSE DD250 2/11
4/10 T&V Sys B/L RevCAIL PR 6/30
RemainingData Dropped8/31 (TBR)
Will be updated after Orion/Ares Coordination
Project OrionProject Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDR ProcessProject Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedeliveredNLT 2/1/10Pre
Board5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel
with completion of RID Disposition
Orion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Dry-Runs
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs
SMR Prep
Project OrionProject Orion
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday1 2 3 4 5
8 9 10 11 12
15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26
29 30 July 1 2 3 - Holiday
June 2009Project Orion
Orion Subsystem Design Reviews
Environmental Control and Life Support SSDR
Structures SSDR
Landing and Recovery System SSDR
LAS Abort Motor SSDR
DAC-3 Closeout ERB
Avionics and Software SSDR
LAS Attitude Control Motor SSDR
Electrical Power System SSDR & Voltage/Distributed Architecture Updates
LAS Jettison Motor SSDR
Wiring SSDR
Passive Thermal Control SSDR
Mechanisms SSDR
Propulsion SSDR
Thermal Protection System SSDR
Pyrotechnics SSDR
Crew Systems SSDR
2 w
k A
ppro
ach
Sacramento, CA
Promontory, Utah
Elkton, MD
Houston
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver Denver
PDU ReviewHouston
SCRAM ReviewHouston
Ends Sat 6/27
Structures SSDRIncludesSat 6/20
LAS focus 6/20 & 6/22 AM Overflow
SSDR KO/ROE (2 ea.)
SSDR KO/ROE (2 ea.)
Chairs ROE (Makeup)2:00 PM MT
Chairs ROE (Makeup)2:00 PM MT
Ends Sat 6/20
GN&C SSDR Conducted 2/24-27LAS SEIT, Avionics & Power SSDR Conducted 4/14-15
Project OrionProject Orion
RID Criteria & Ground Rules
15
Criteria• A design-related issue intended to document:
• Inability of the preliminary design to meet requirements (e.g., design compliance issues)
• Incomplete or incorrect requirement flow down or traceability• Incomplete or inadequate maturity for PDR (e.g., incomplete/inadequate trades or
models)• Undefined or inadequately defined technical interfaces• Inconsistency between design, analysis, requirements, or operations concepts• Incorrect or inadequate verification methods in support of the preliminary design• Inconsistency with the primary characteristics that should factor into each design
decision as identified in CxP 70000, Constellation Architecture Requirements Document, Section 3.1.2. These primary characteristics are: Safety and Mission Success, Programmatic Risk, Extensibility and Flexibility, and Life Cycle Cost
• Unsafe design features• Unidentified or inadequately mitigated risk
• Inconsistency with Project objectives
Project OrionProject Orion
RID Criteria & Ground Rules
16
Ground Rules• RIDs can be written against RIDable documents or against any aspect of the Orion
vehicle design and technical plans within the purview of the Orion Project• RIDs will be recommended for withdrawal if the initiator is identifying a deficiency that
is out of scope of this review or does not meet the RID criteria listed above• An assertion via RID that a design feature is inconsistent or deficient with respect to
the primary characteristics expressed in the Orion Requirements Baseline should be supported by rationale that provides a credible case for the existence of a more favorable alternative
• Where possible, RIDs should be tied to functional or performance requirements or constraints
• RIDs will also be recommended for withdrawal if the requestor is identifying an area of “forward work”
• “Forward work” is defined as work that is necessary for successful completion of the Orion vehicle but not required to satisfy the success criteria for PDR
• Lack of sufficient information is a basis for a RID only if the RID initiator has exhausted all reasonable means to obtain the information or if the information has not been made available as required by the entrance criteria
Project OrionProject Orion
RID Criteria & Ground Rules
17
Ground Rules• Editorial RIDs will be demoted to comments and forwarded to the document
developer as information at the end of the review• Initiators are expected to review the errata sheet associated with a specific DRD prior
to reviewing the DRD and/or prior to entering a RID• RIDs are intended to identify design issues and are not intended to document known
issues as documented in the errata• RIDs may be written if the errata description or details are insufficient to provide
confidence that the issue has been addressed or will be addressed in the appropriate manner and timeframe
Project OrionProject Orion
What is a Good RID?
• What is a good RID?– A “new” design related issue– Accurately describes the design related issue consistent with the RID criteria– Provides the details of where the issue was found
• For DRD related RIDs (section, page, etc)• For Architecture Element RIDs with no DRD referenced (chart, conversation, etc.)
– Provides a sufficiently detailed recommended resolution– Stays within the scope of PDR expectations– For requirements, provides correct “from” language and recommends “to” language
• What is a bad RID?– Incomplete issue identification– No recommended resolution– Recommended resolution of “fix this”– Editorial comment (spelling, grammar, etc.)– RID that expands on errata or duplicates a Pre-Declared RID– Post PDR level of maturity / unrealistic expectations– RID written against a baselined or reference document (Examples: SRD, S/C Spec)– RID entered by someone other than the original initiator without documenting the original
initiator– RID written against a previously made project decision (VICB, CPCB, etc.) without new data
or evidence to challenge the decision
Don’t tell us something we already know!!!
An issue that has not previously been identified.
Project Orion
19
PDR Results
19
Project Orion
PDR Assessment
• Design Issues– A detailed pre-assessment was performed by each of the module prior to entering PDR– All known issues were presented at each SSDR and the SMR
• No new significant issues surfaced during the reviews– Significant focus was applied to ensure known issues had agreed-to plans to proceed– Top issues contributing to non-green assessments
• Mechanisms – FBC R&R – FBC Recontact, CM/SM R&R Maturity• LRS – FBC Recontact / Parachute Architecture & Testability• TPS & Structures – Parachute Architecture Impacts to Baseline• EPS – 120 V Incorporation• AV&SW – C&T Incorporation, BFCS Maturity• ECLS – ARS Suit Loop, Procurement Schedule• CM Prop – Procurement Schedule• Pyro – Devices Dependent on Mechanism Maturity• LAS ACM – Production Motor Maturity
• 18 Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs) executed successfully– Each SSDR assessed against a common set of entry and success criteria plus a joint set of NASA/LM agreed to objective
evidence customized for each Subsystem– 59 Total Review Days & approximately 500 review participants
• PDR executed successfully– Each module assessed against a common set of entry and success criteria; ITAs assessment integrated – 56 days of DRD review, 7 day System & Module review, 1 week pre-Board and a Board– Approximately 1200 reviewers
Yellow / Green• Project Management assessed PDR a success and authorized the program to proceed
to the detailed design phase• Assessment based on a Red, Yellow, Green scale
Parachute Architecture Study was underway prior to entering PDR. Assessment concluded in October 2009.
Driven by significant post SDR requirements changes
Procurement schedules were being updated to align with project funding profile
Project Orion
PDR Data Package• NASA/LM jointly assessed PDR
deliverables to determine which DRDs were necessary to meet PDR expectations and satisfy criteria
• PDR –• 146 Deliverable Documents
• SSDR & PDR –• 26 Design & Data Books
• Data Package Total• 172 Total PDR Documents• 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs
provided to NASA for comment
Waterfalled Review and Delivery• Managed via the PDR Integration
Team• Captured in a 2000+ line MS
Project Schedule• Metrics generated & reported on
a weekly basis• Deliveries culminated on 7/7/09,
PDR-45 Days
PDR Data Package Delivery
As of July 8, 2009
PDR -45 days
Project Orion
Action Item & RID Closure
PDR RIDsLAS 150
CM 241
SM 90
Av&Pwr&Wire 444
Software 38
T&V, Fac, GSE 411
AI&P 18
SR&QA 91
Systems 566
Total 2049
SSDR ActionsAV&SW 140
Crew Systems 39
ECLSS 49
EPS 97
GN&C 26
LAS AM 60
LAS ACM 96
LAS JM 60
LAS SE&I AVP 12
LRS 42
Mechanisms 56
Propulsion 150
PTC 33
Pyro 26
Structures 141
TPS 20
Wiring 14
Total 1061
• Detailed Action and RID screening occurred throughout the SSDR & PDR process
• All actions and RIDs dispositioned and closure aligned with project post PDR work plan
• All RIDs approved by PDR Board
• Project approved closure plan implemented
• Approximately 100,000 pages of design, process, and plan documentation reviewed
• Included requirements, interface definition, verification details, general plans, etc.
Project Orion
23
Key LessonsLearned
23
Project Orion
Key PDR Lessons Learned
• SSDRs– SSDRs executed in parallel and in a common location worked well
• Key personnel were in the building and available and could easily bounce between reviews when needed
– Focused review teams allowed the reviews to move at a sufficient pace while ensuring all significant information was reviewed to an adequate level
• On-site review teams of 50 to 100 personnel is appropriate• Overflow rooms and remote participation were not an ideal way of participating in the on-site review
– Data Packages consisted of the core information necessary to evaluate design maturity• Minimizing the data package to only those DRDs necessary to establish design maturity supported a
streamlined review process– Early technical and peer reviews facilitated improved design awareness prior to the review– Need to strengthen Software integration into SSDRs
• Evaluate what additional products need to be added to the SSDR Data Packages• Note software was addressed to level required for NPR 7123.1a (project wants additional focus for CDR)
– Need to ensure adequate spacing between tech reviews and SSDRs to allow for sufficient time to close TR actions
• Need SSDR co-chairs to review open TR actions prior to SSDRs– Transferring SSDR actions to RIDs created a dual paper trail that required unnecessary effort to resolve– SSDR Dry-runs need to be scheduled further in advance to allow subsystem team to make adjustments
prior to the review– SSDR Caucuses were most effective when kept to a small attendance– SSDR color ratings took more time than expected given that issues were identified ahead of the SSDR
Project Orion
• PDR– Data Package Preparation, Delivery, & Review
• Separate Technical and Peer Reviews were not the most efficient way to review DRDs– Peer Reviews were not viewed as where the detailed review occurs– Integrating Technical and Peer Reviews into a single review that meets the expectation of both
reviews• Decouple DRDs not needed for design review from the design review
– Review and accept these documents through NASA’s normal DRD acceptance process• Waterfalled delivery allows for early review of material prior to the face-to-face reviews
– System & Module Review (SMR)• SMR value did not match level of effort required to prepare and execute
– Most technical review and discussion occurred at the SSDRs– Weak in-person attendance
• Need to change this review to an integrated vehicle review focusing on the integrate module and integrated stack design for CDR
– Include Assembly, Integration & Production– Include Test & Verification– Pull the integrated analysis and design products and review them up-front prior to the SSDRs
• Create a one-day CDR Kick-off that gives the requirements baseline, environments overview, etc. prior to the CDR SSDRs
Key PDR Lessons Learned
Project Orion
• PDR– RID Tool, ProjectLink, Portal, and Wiki
• Use one tool from the beginning of the process through completion– Minimizes duplication of issues and the overhead of transferring from one tool to another
• Test the RID tool earlier in the planning process• Choose a RID tool that allows for a detailed closure process tracking• Portals and Wiki were a valuable resource to all reviewer
– Assign a NASA IT person to the PIT for CDR• PDR hotline (outlook email box) served as a ongoing resource when reviewers did not know who to
contact regarding a process or technical issue– RID Screening and Review Teams
• IPTs who integrated the screening/review effort completed activities earlier and reduced iteration when dispositioning / resolving issues
• Improved direction regarding “Approve” and “Approve w/mod” needs to be developed and communicated to review teams prior to start
• Training needs to better prepare the reviewers for what to review the design against (Rqmts, Docs)– Consider adding an Orion familiarization to the training
– Pre-Board and Board• Overall Board execution proceeded to plan
– Increased Pre-Board time needed in CDR schedule if a similar number of RIDable documents are to be reviewed during CDR
• Ensure RIDs dispositioned by pre-board or board are updated in the tool needs to occur• Do not push issue decisions to later forums (VICB, CPCB, etc.). Make the decisions prior to leaving
the Board even if this extends the Board
Key PDR Lessons Learned
Project Orion
27
Initial CDRTop-level Plan
27
Project Orion
Top-level CDR Plan
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Orion CDR Kickoff
DRD Review
Interactive Reading Room (DRDs, Drawings, Etc.)
SSDRs
SSDR Caucuses
RID Disposition (Product Owners & Leads)
System Analysis Review (1 to 2 days)
RID Tool Opens
RID Review Teams
Pre-Board
Board
RID Tool Closes
Integrated Vehicle Design Review
DRAFT
Issue Identification (RID generation)
IVDR
DRAFT
Project Orion
Top-level CDR Plan
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Orion CDR Kickoff
DRD Review
Interactive Reading Room (DRDs, Drawings, Etc.)
SSDRs
SSDR Caucuses
RID Disposition (Product Owners & Leads)
System Analysis Review (1 to 2 days)
RID Tool Opens
RID Review Teams
Pre-Board
Board
RID Tool Closes
Integrated Vehicle Design Review
DRAFT
Issue Identification (RID generation)
IVDR
• All reviewers participate in the Orion CDR Kickoff (Orion Familiarization) to educate reviewers on the:
• Design configuration• Requirements baseline• Environments baseline• Design Work products• Significant design issues and their closure plans
• Coordinate what metrics are needed with RID/Action Tool prior to CDR• RID closure will be handled within IDE• Errata and Pre-Declared RIDs all in one location (minimize number)• Caucus serves the function of RID Screening• Align tool with Process
• Don’t duplicate SSDR actions and RIDs. • Issues captured in standard format throughout process (Action/RID Tool)• Standardize process for handling cost/schedule issues• Ensure Action/RID template aligns with IDE tool • Summarize SSDR content that has been covered in component CDRs
• Replace SMR with an Integrated Vehicle Design Review• Cover integrated module, integrated stack, AI&P, T&V, etc.
Notes from Orion Streamlining TIM 12/09 DRAFT
Project Orion
30
Closing Remarks
30
Project Orion
PDR Supporting Documentation
• PDR Plan– CxP 72212 CxP Orion PDR Plan is available on PDR Wiki or PDR
Portal/Dashboard
• PDR Resources– PDR Wiki
• Used as a resource to all Orion personnel and PDR stakeholders to communicate the current planning status
• https://ice.exploration.nasa.gov/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=13828791&maxRecentlyUpdatedPageCount=20
– PDR Portal• Used to formally provide all SSDR and PDR details, data package, and review results• Federal record of review• https://ice.exploration.nasa.gov/ice/site/cx/reviews_orion_pdr/
Project Orion
PDR Integration Team
In addition to the core PIT members above, there were members from each IPT, Module, Planning, and Administration incorporated into the planning effort and considered active PIT members.
Project Orion
Questions?
33
Project OrionProject Orion
34
Back-up
Project OrionProject Orion
Entrance Criteria
Orion Entrance Criteria (CxP 72212)1) Successful completion and close-out of SDR. All prior SDR Actions and RIDs have been closed, or approved closure plan exists for those remaining open.
2) PDR plan has been approved by the CPCB, which includes the PDR entrance and success criteria, RID/Action process, Board Members, stakeholders and schedule.
3) All PDR applicable and supporting products have been delivered and made accessible for stakeholders prior to review.
4) Updated baselined documentation, as required.
5) Preliminary design is established for each subsystem and supporting subsystem specifications are final with supporting analysis and trade-studies. Spacecraft, Module and Subsystem Specifications are complete and traceable. Subsystem specifications include Component definition. Component specifications delivery and review schedules have been developed and aligned with procurement strategy, including long-lead items. Preliminary software design and supporting subsystem specifications should include a complete definition of the software architecture and preliminary database design description (if applicable) which should include all analysis and data used for the development/maturation of the software architecture.
6) Technology development plans are updated.
7) The project risks and opportunities have been developed. Acceptable risk mitigation plans have been developed in accordance with the Orion Risk Management Plan.
8) Cost/schedule data are available to appropriate reviewers.
9) Updated logistics documentation, including initial support equipment list.
Project OrionProject Orion
Entrance Criteria
Orion Entrance Criteria (CxP 72212)
10) Applicable technical plans (e.g., technical performance measurement plan, contamination control plan, parts management plan, environments control plan, EMI/EMC control plan, producibility/manufacturability program plan, reliability program plan, quality assurance plan).
11) Updated Applicable standards.
12) Integrated CEV flight safety analysis (including software safety analyses) and other applicable S&MA analysis of preliminary design (Failure Modes and Effect Analysis, flight system reliability and maintainability analysis, Probabilistic Risk Assessment, etc.) are complete and requirements are implemented in system, module, subsystem, and component specifications (component specifications are developed per the acquisition strategy). All associated plans have been developed.
13) Updated Engineering drawing tree.
14) Preliminary Functional and physical interfaces are developed and documented in the Interface Control Documents (ICDs).
15) Test and verification and validation plans are defined.
16) Plans to respond to regulatory requirements (e.g., Environmental Impact Statement, as required)
17) Disposal Plans defining safe disposal of assets.
18) Technical resource utilization estimates and performance margins are updated.
19) Preliminary limited life items list is updated (LLIL).
20) Operational planning is proceeding to schedule.
Project OrionProject Orion
Success Criteria
Orion Success Criteria (CxP 72212)1) The Spacecraft, Module, and Subsystem Requirements, TPMs and any CxP-imposed requirements are agreed upon, finalized, stated clearly and are consistent with the preliminary design.2) The flow down of verifiable requirements to the subsystems and to the appropriate components are complete. An adequate plan exists for timely resolution of all open items. Requirements are traceable to Orion SRD, CxP IRDs and other applicable CxP requirements including any errata.3) System, module and subsystem preliminary designs are complete and meet requirements at an acceptable level of risk. All liens have been identified and closure plans developed.4) Technical interfaces are defined, deemed adequate, and are consistent with the overall technical maturity and provide an acceptable level of risk.5) Adequate spacecraft technical margins exist with respect to TPMs.6) Any required new technology has been developed to an adequate state of readiness or back-up options exist and are supported to make them a viable alternative.7) The project risks and opportunities are understood and have been credibly assessed. Appropriate risk mitigation plans for all top risks. 8) Safety and mission assurance (e.g., safety, reliability, maintainability, quality, and EEE parts) have been adequately addressed in preliminary designs and any applicable S&MA products (e.g., PRA, system safety analysis, and failure modes and effects analysis) have been reviewed and concurred.9) The operational concept is technically sound, is supported by the vehicle design, and includes (where appropriate) human factors. Appropriate requirements identified by the ConOps have been flowed down including requirements for ConOps execution.10) Preliminary test and verification plans are updated. Manufacturing plans are developed.11) System costs are within targets.
Project OrionProject Orion
Product to Criteria Mapping
• Performed a detailed analysis and mapping of Entrance and Success Criteria• The PDR Data Package is mapped to the criteria and documented in Appendix C of
CxP 72212 Orion PDR Process Plan
Project Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDRrev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT
Project Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedelivered
NET 11/6
Redelivery date will be recommended on 8/21 based on number and complexity of
RIDs.
PreBoard
Dry-Runs
SMR PrepOrion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts 8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs
5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition
Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs)
18 Subsystem Reviews• 3 SSDRs Executed Prior to the 2-wk SSDRs
• GN&C SSDR Completed on 2/24-27• LAS SEIT, Avionics & Power SSDR Completed on 4/14-15• LAS Jettison Motor Completed on 6/8-10• Helped iron out the process and allowed the team to take advantage of
lessons learned• 13 SSDRs completed 2-wk set of SSDRs on 6/15-26
• At any given time 4 SSDRs were occurring in parallel in the Lockheed Martin Denver WB2 facility
• 2 remaining SSDRs completed the last week of June• SSDR Products
• 28 Design & Data Books Delivered & Reviewed• 23 Draft Subsystem Specs, 21 Subsystem IRDs, 21 Subsystem ICDs, and
12 Subsystem Volumes of MVPs Available for Comment• 59 Total Review Days• Over 1,000 review participants including support from NESC, SRB, NASA Crew
Office, NASA MOD, NASA Engineering, NASA S&MA, NASA Health & Medical, Constellation, Orion Project, & LM Central Engineering
• 1,056 Action Items Generated• All actions recorded in either the ConCERT RID Tool or LM IDE
Project Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDRrev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT
Project Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedelivered
NET 11/6
Redelivery date will be recommended on 8/21 based on number and complexity of
RIDs.
PreBoard
Dry-Runs
SMR PrepOrion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts 8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs
Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs)
18 Subsystem Reviews• 3 SSDRs Executed Prior to the 2-wk SSDRs
• GN&C SSDR Completed on 2/24-27• LAS SEIT, Avionics & Power SSDR Completed on 4/14-15• LAS Jettison Motor Completed on 6/8-10• Helped iron out the process and allowed the team to take advantage of
lessons learned• 13 SSDRs completed 2-wk set of SSDRs on 6/15-26
• At any given time 4 SSDRs were occurring in parallel in the Lockheed Martin Denver WB2 facility
• 2 remaining SSDRs completed the last week of June• SSDR Products
• Design & Data Books Delivered & Reviewed• Draft Subsystem Specs, Subsystem IRDs, Subsystem ICDs, and Subsystem
Volumes of MVPs Available for Comment• Over 1,000 review participants including support from NESC, SRB, NASA Crew
Office, NASA MOD, NASA Engineering, NASA Orion, LM Orion, & LM Central Engineering
• _________ Action Items Generated• _____ Actions classified as “Pre-declared RIDs”• _____ Actions classified as “Complete Prior to PDR”• _____ Actions classified as “Forward Work”• All actions recorded in either the ConCERT RID Tool or LM IDE
5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition
Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs)
Each SSDR assessed against a common set of entry and success criteria plus a joint set of NASA/LM agreed to objective evidence customized for each Subsystem (Assessed either Green, Yellow, or Red)
3. The subsystem risks and opportunities are understood and have been credibly assessed. Acceptable risk mitigation plans have been developed where applicable.
4. The preliminary subsystem design is reliable and safe for use. Reliability and safety analyses of the preliminary design have been performed and resulting requirements flowed down to the system, module, and subsystem. Preliminary plans for tests, analyses, demonstrations, and inspections will verify the reliability and safety of the subsystem. Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance (SR&QA) has been adequately addressed in preliminary designs, and applicable SR&QAproducts (e.g., PRA, system safety hazard analysis, and failure modes and effects analysis) satisfy PDR product maturation requirements (e.g. Phase 1 Safety Review criteria)
Mechanism
s
LAS A
MTPSEPS
LAS A
CM
Pyro
AV &
SWEC
LSStructures
SM Prop
CM
PropLR
SPTC
Wiring
Crew
Systems
LAS JM
LAS SEI, AVP
GN
&CSubsystem Criteria
1. Requirements are complete and flowed to the appropriate products. Subsystem specifications are updated.
2. Subsystem design is complete to a level of detail that is sufficient to demonstrate that all requirements are expected to be met at an acceptable level of risk. Subsystem preliminary design baseline is complete and does not exceed subsystem mass and power allocations. Subsystem preliminary design includes hardware and software considerations. Test and verification plans are defined. Technical interfaces are defined, deemed adequate, and are consistent with the overall technical maturity at an acceptable level of risk. Resolution plans for any non-compliance have been developed.
5. Test, verification and manufacturing planning are underway.
3. The subsystem risks and opportunities are understood and have been credibly assessed. Acceptable risk mitigation plans have been developed where applicable.
4. The preliminary subsystem design is reliable and safe for use. Reliability and safety analyses of the preliminary design have been performed and resulting requirements flowed down to the system, module, and subsystem. Preliminary plans for tests, analyses, demonstrations, and inspections will verify the reliability and safety of the subsystem. Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance (SR&QA) has been adequately addressed in preliminary designs, and applicable SR&QAproducts (e.g., PRA, system safety hazard analysis, and failure modes and effects analysis) satisfy PDR product maturation requirements (e.g. Phase 1 Safety Review criteria)
Mechanism
s
LAS A
MTPSEPS
LAS A
CM
Pyro
AV &
SWEC
LSStructures
SM Prop
CM
PropLR
SPTC
Wiring
Crew
Systems
LAS JM
LAS SEI, AVP
GN
&CSubsystem Criteria
1. Requirements are complete and flowed to the appropriate products. Subsystem specifications are updated.
2. Subsystem design is complete to a level of detail that is sufficient to demonstrate that all requirements are expected to be met at an acceptable level of risk. Subsystem preliminary design baseline is complete and does not exceed subsystem mass and power allocations. Subsystem preliminary design includes hardware and software considerations. Test and verification plans are defined. Technical interfaces are defined, deemed adequate, and are consistent with the overall technical maturity at an acceptable level of risk. Resolution plans for any non-compliance have been developed.
5. Test, verification and manufacturing planning are underway.
Project Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDRrev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT
Project Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedelivered
NET 11/6
Redelivery date will be recommended on 8/21 based on number and complexity of
RIDs.
PreBoard
4 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition
Orion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts 8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Dry-Runs
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs SMR Prep
Data Requirements Description (DRD) Review and Waterfall
PDR Data Package• NASA/LM jointly assessed PDR deliverables to determine which DRDs were
necessary to meet PDR expectations and satisfy criteria • PDR –
• 146 Deliverable Documents(Includes multiple volumes of specific DRDs, i.e. MVP, Specs, IRDs)
• SSDR & PDR –• 26 Design & Data Books
• Data Package Total• 172 Total PDR Documents
• 145 RIDable Documents (listed on PDR Portal)• 12 Commentable Documents• 17 DRDs reviewed through NASA DRD Review Process Early
(2 Documents Redelivered Prior to 7/7)• 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs provided to NASA for comment
• Total SSDR and PDR Data Package consisted of nearly 100,000 pages of requirements, interface definition, verification details, general plans, and supporting design detail
Waterfalled Review and Delivery• Managed via the PDR Integration Team
• Captured in a 2000+ line MS Project Schedule• Included Tech Reviews, Peer Reviews, C&DM Processing, and Delivery
• Metrics generated on a weekly basis• Reported to Management team through various forums
• Deliveries culminated on 7/7/09, PDR-45 Days
Project Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDRrev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT
Project Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedelivered
NET 11/6
Redelivery date will be recommended on 8/21 based on number and complexity of
RIDs.
PreBoard
4 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition
Orion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts 8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Dry-Runs
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs SMR Prep
Data Requirements Description (DRD) Review and Waterfall
PDR Data Package• NASA/LM jointly assessed PDR deliverables to determine which DRDs were
necessary to meet PDR expectations and satisfy criteria • PDR –
• 146 Deliverable Documents(Includes multiple volumes of specific DRDs, i.e. MVP, Specs, IRDs)
• SSDR & PDR –• 26 Design & Data Books
• Data Package Total• 172 Total PDR Documents
• 145 RIDable Documents (listed on PDR Portal)• 12 Commentable Documents• 17 DRDs reviewed through NASA DRD Review Process Early
(2 Documents Redelivered Prior to 7/7)• 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs provided to NASA for comment
• Total SSDR and PDR Data Package consisted of nearly 100,000 pages of requirements, interface definition, verification details, general plans, and supporting design detail
Waterfalled Review and Delivery• Managed via the PDR Integration Team
• Captured in a 2000+ line MS Project Schedule• Included Tech Reviews, Peer Reviews, C&DM Processing, and Delivery
• Metrics generated on a weekly basis• Reported to Management team through various forums
• Deliveries culminated on 7/7/09, PDR-45 Days
Data Requirements Description (DRD) Review and Waterfall
PDR Data Package• Metrics Summary – July 8th, 2009
Project Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDRrev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT
Project Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedelivered
NET 11/6
Redelivery date will be recommended on 8/21 based on number and complexity of
RIDs.
PreBoard
Orion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts 8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Dry-Runs
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs SMR Prep
5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition
System & Module Review (SMR)
The purpose was to kick off the Orion Preliminary Design Review and to provide a detailed overview of the DAC-3 close-out (606G) vehicle configuration and system architecture. The goals of SMR were to provide:
• Common understanding of the system architecture and PDR technical baseline
• Common understanding of ground systems and operations requirements and plans
• Common understanding of flight operations by mission phase
• Status on major open system, module, and subsystem issues
• Clarification of what documents are available at PDR and the applicable NASA documents, by version, used in developing the Data Requirements Document (DRDs)
• RID criteria and ground rules
• 7 Day Review• Participants included NESC, SRB, NASA Crew Office,
NASA MOD, NASA Engineering, NASA S&MA, NASA Health & Medical, Constellation, Orion Project, & LM Central Engineering
Project Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDRrev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT
Project Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedelivered
NET 11/6
Redelivery date will be recommended on 8/21 based on number and complexity of
RIDs.
PreBoard
4 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition
Orion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts 8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Dry-Runs
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs SMR Prep
Documentation Review
RID and Comment Generation• RIDs Written Against
• 145 RIDable Documents• Architecture Elements (IPTs, Modules, Subsystems)• All PDR Related Presentation Material
• Comments Written Against• 53 “Drafts Available” DRDs provided to NASA for comment
• 1200+ Reviewers (Initiators & Sponsors) Participated in Review of Documentation
• Detailed metrics will be provided in the RID Metrics & Reclama Status portion of the Board
Training• Completed 12 RID Training Sessions Focusing on RID Intiation and
Sponsorship• RID Training Package Located on PDR Wiki and PDR Portal
(See link below)
Data Package Access• NASA ICE PDR Portal
• https://ice.exploration.nasa.gov/ice/site/cx/reviews_orion_pdr/
Project Orion
June July August Sep Oct
DRD Update & Redeliver(Type 1 + Final Type 2)
DRD Waterfall / Early Review(Tech Reviews & Peer Reviews)
Orion PDRrev 8/26/09 – 2200 MT
Project Orion
SMR
PDR KO7/13 7/21
8/10 NASA ScreeningTeam Concludes RID Screening
All RIDsDispositioned8/20
4 wk DRD Review(RID Creation &
Sponsor)
System &Module
Presentations
Decision to Proceed to DAC-4
RIDs Captured Against Design
DRDs Delivered7/7 PDR -45
NASAScreening
TeamNASA Lvl III Review & Filter RIDs
(Work disconnects with external stakeholders)(LM SEIT led SME team available to answer questions)
RID Tool OpenTBD
RID Tool Close (all RIDs Sponsored)7/31
DRDsRedelivered
NET 11/6
Redelivery date will be recommended on 8/21 based on number and complexity of
RIDs.
PreBoard
Orion PDR
All RIDs receive product owner or lead recommendedDisposition8/17
Starts 8/3
Starts 8/12
Product OwnerRecommendDisposition
Starts 8/17
8/4 BoardDecision Gate
8/10 ForwardDaily Board Decision Gates
S
IntegTeam
PIT Lead with Module/IPT SupportStarts 8/27
PIT War Room
8/31-9/1 PDR Board
Review TeamDisposition
Dry-Runs
Subsystem DesignReviews (SSDRs)
2-WkSSDRs SMR Prep
RID Review and Disposition
• Detailed multi-level approach to RID review and disposition.
• Process included initiators, sponsors, IPT leads, subsystem leads, systems engineering, and project management
5 1/2 Day Pre-Board to work issues in parallel with completion of RID Disposition
Project OrionProject Orion
Subsystem Design Reviews
• Subsystem Design Reviews (SSDRs) provided the Orion stakeholders the opportunity to review each subsystem’s preliminary design
• Products reviewed at SSDRs provided objective evidence that the preliminary subsystem design meets requirements with acceptable risk
• Additional Objectives included:• Reviewing the preliminary design as documented in the technical design
products for each subsystem • Participating in a face-to-face open forum, raising issues/concerns,
answering questions or clarifying design details• Providing forward plans for significant issues from preceding reviews• Demonstrating horizontal integration with other subsystems• Reviewing the design against functional and performance specifications and
ground and mission operability characteristics • Evaluating the technical adequacy and maturity of design• Ensuring correct design options have been selected• Ensuring interfaces have been identified and defined• Reviewing the verification approach• Reviewing associated risks and risk management strategies• Evaluating the Subsystem readiness to proceed to PDR
Project Orion
System & Module Review (SMR)
47
• The purpose of the System & Module Review (SMR) was to kick off the Orion Preliminary Design Review and to provide a detailed overview of the DAC-3 close-out (606G) vehicle configuration and system architecture. The goals of SMR were to provide:• Common understanding of the system architecture and PDR
technical baseline• Common understanding of ground systems and operations
requirements and plans• Common understanding of flight operations by mission phase• Status on major open system, module, and subsystem issues• Clarification of what documents are available at PDR and the
applicable NASA documents, by version, used in developing the Data Requirements Document (DRDs)
• RID criteria and ground rules
Project Orion
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
Initiators
• RIDs can be written against a DRD or against an architectural element (i.e. CM Prop). When writing a RID against an Architectural Element a reference to the document, drawing, or presentation that triggered the concern must be included in the “Other Affected Documents” field.
Roles & Responsibilities• Review PDR products and document issues in the
RID Tool• Respond to dispositions (agree/disagree) provided
by the Screening Team, Product Owner, Review Team Leads, and/or Pre-Board (within 2 working days)
• Submit reclamas against RID dispositions to the next higher level in the process, if an agreement cannot be met regarding the recommended disposition (including the Sponsor level)
• Prepare presentation information, as needed, for RIDs reclama’d to the Pre-Board and/or Board level
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Sponsors
• A technically cognizant manager knowledgeable of the Orion design.
• Sponsors represent Projects, Directorates, and Functional Areas.
Roles & Responsibilities• The Sponsor reviews all RIDs from their
organization’s RID Initiators prior to submitting the RID to the Orion Project.
• The Sponsor will first review the RID to ensure that it meets the appropriate RID Criteria.
• If the RID Criteria are not met or it is out of scope of this review, then it is expected that the Sponsor will request withdraw or ask the RID Initiator to modify the RID appropriately so that it meets the RID Criteria.
• Next the Sponsor should determine if the RID is representative of their organization’s position on the RID issue. If it is not, then it is expected that the Sponsor will request withdraw or ask the RID Initiator to modify the RID appropriately.
• If the Initiator is not available to reclama or defend their RID, the Sponsor has the authority to act on behalf of the Initiator.
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Integration Team
Members• Lead by the PDR Integration Team
(MRI, PIT will act as super users in the Tool)
• Reps from IPTs• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per
team
• Roles & Responsibilities• Triage all RIDs to appropriate Screening Teams
(performed outside the RID tool)• Integration team will download to a spreadsheet and
flag screening/review teams to ensure all RIDs are bucketed correctly.
• Ensure that RIDs are complete and not missing relevant/key info
• Scan every RID to ensure proper Screening , Product Owner, and Review Team mapping
• For example, determine if RIDs against specs go to Requirements Team or the Module Teams
• Ensure the RIDs are assigned to proper technical authority (resource owner) for disposition
• Ensure RIDs that need horizontal integration have been addressed.
• Increase coordination on hot issues that span multiple team areas by flagging RIDs that will have to be transferred between Screening teams
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Integration Team
Members• Lead by the PDR Integration Team
(MRI, PIT will act as super users in the Tool)
• Reps from IPTs• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per
team
• Roles & Responsibilities• Triage all RIDs to appropriate Screening Teams
(performed outside the RID tool)• Integration team will download to a spreadsheet and
flag screening/review teams to ensure all RIDs are bucketed correctly.
• Ensure that RIDs are complete and not missing relevant/key info
• Scan every RID to ensure proper Screening , Product Owner, and Review Team mapping
• For example, determine if RIDs against specs go to Requirements Team or the Module Teams
• Ensure the RIDs are assigned to proper technical authority (resource owner) for disposition
• Ensure RIDs that need horizontal integration have been addressed.
• Increase coordination on hot issues that span multiple team areas by flagging RIDs that will have to be transferred between Screening teams
Integration Team (Continued)
Roles & Responsibilities (cont.)• Flag RIDs that need coordination from multiple
Screening and Review Teams• Flag RIDs that need to be merged
• Upon integration team direction, MRI will merge the RIDs
• Merge duplicate RIDs to reduce work load on Review Teams
• Super users will move RIDs around “informally” as needed
• While Screening/Review Teams are meeting, team will transition to “War Room Mode”
• Team will help manage RID review schedules across review teams
Schedule• Early meeting(s) during the week of July 27-30
• Daily meetings starting at 8:30 AM CT (Go until we have finished what could be processed)
• Target 3-4 Aug 09 in Houston for wrap-up of RIDs dropped on final days prior to 7/31
• Review of integrated RIDs requiring F2F discussion
• Integration team will transition to a full time effort lead by the PIT in parallel to the screening and review teams. (War Room Mode)
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Integration Team
Members• Lead by the PDR Integration Team
(MRI, PIT will act as super users in the Tool)
• Reps from IPTs• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per
team
• Roles & Responsibilities• Triage all RIDs to appropriate Screening Teams
(performed outside the RID tool)• Integration team will download to a spreadsheet and
flag screening/review teams to ensure all RIDs are bucketed correctly.
• Ensure that RIDs are complete and not missing relevant/key info
• Scan every RID to ensure proper Screening , Product Owner, and Review Team mapping
• For example, determine if RIDs against specs go to Requirements Team or the Module Teams
• Ensure the RIDs are assigned to proper technical authority (resource owner) for disposition
• Ensure RIDs that need horizontal integration have been addressed.
• Increase coordination on hot issues that span multiple team areas by flagging RIDs that will have to be transferred between Screening teams
Integration Team (Continued
Roles & Responsibilities (cont.)• Flag RIDs that need coordination from multiple
Screening and Review Teams• Flag RIDs that need to be merged
• Upon integration team direction, MRI will merge the RIDs
• Merge duplicate RIDs to reduce work load on Review Teams
• Super users will move RIDs around “informally” as needed
• While Screening/Review Teams are meeting, team will transition to “War Room Mode”
• Team will help manage RID review schedules across review teams
Schedule• Early meeting(s) during the week of July 27-30
• Daily meetings starting at 8:30 AM CT (Go until we have finished what could be processed)
• Target 3-4 Aug 09 in Houston for wrap-up of RIDs dropped on final days prior to 7/31
• Review of integrated RIDs requiring F2F discussion
• Integration team will transition to a full time effort lead by the PIT in parallel to the screening and review teams. (War Room Mode)
Integration Team (Continued)
Location• Houston, Space Park
Team Logistics and Procedures• MRI will assist in giving each team a .xls export of
all of the RIDs in their area• Teams will scan every RID assigned to their
Screening/Review Team area • Mini-teams will be created if the volume of RID
throughput is significant• Assign a POC to check off that every RID was
scanned (PIT, MRI)• Teams will flag any RID that needs to be re-assigned
or merged• MRI will re-assign flagged RIDs in the ConCERT RID
Tool
RID Tool Procedures• The integration team will be “invisible” to the RID
Tool• PIT and MRI Super Users will move RIDs around as
needed
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Screening Teams
Members• Team Leads (NASA IPT/Mod Lead)• Reps from IPTs as required (T&V, SR&QA,
Requirements, Vehicle, etc.)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• LM Focus team assigns 1 to 2 people per team to
support• PIT and MRI
Roles and Responsibilities• Check that RIDs meet RID Criteria and screen for
quality• Assign recommended disposition to each RID
• “Recommend Withdraw” or “Approve with Mod”• Communicate with RID initiator as necessary
• “Recommend Approve” indicates a good RID and passes on to LM
• Merge duplicate RIDs• Clarify poor RIDs before they are elevated to the
Product Owner/Review Team• Flag RIDs on subjects that have already been
decided at CPCB, ERB, etc (Best effort)
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Screening Teams
Members• Team Leads (NASA IPT/Mod Lead)• Reps from IPTs as required (T&V, SR&QA,
Requirements, Vehicle, etc.)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• LM Focus team assigns 1 to 2 people per team to
support• PIT and MRI
Roles and Responsibilities• Check that RIDs meet RID Criteria and screen for
quality• Assign recommended disposition to each RID• “Recommend Withdraw” or “Approve with Mod”• Communicate with RID initiator as necessary• “Recommend Approve” indicates a good RID and
passes on to LM• Merge duplicate RIDs• Clarify poor RIDs before they are elevated to the
Product Owner/Review Team• Flag RIDs on subjects that have already been
decided at CPCB, ERB, etc (Best effort)
Screening Teams (Continued)
Roles and Responsibilities• Screening Team should attempt to dialogue with
initiator if disposition is other than straight Approve in order to clarify intent and streamline later disposition and review team function (if this bogs us down too much we may need to modify)
• If a large number of RIDs are assigned to a Screening Team, the Lead can assign team members a set of RIDs to screen based on subject and experts needed
• Team Members will recommend disposition to Screening Team Lead
• Can recommend transfer to another Screening Team• MRI will work the tool• Merge parent/child RIDs in the ConCERT RID Tool• Input recommend disposition in the ConCERT RID
Schedule• Planned for August 3-10• May begin meeting and screening RIDs during the
week of 27-31 July 09 at discretion of screening team• RID Schedule and Priority
• Pre-Declared RIDs, As RIDs are sponsored, As team is available
• Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to determine how much meeting time is required
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Screening Teams
Members• Team Leads (NASA IPT/Mod Lead)• Reps from IPTs as required (T&V, SR&QA,
Requirements, Vehicle, etc.)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• LM Focus team assigns 1 to 2 people per team to
support• PIT and MRI
Roles and Responsibilities• Check that RIDs meet RID Criteria and screen for
quality• Assign recommended disposition to each RID• “Recommend Withdraw” or “Approve with Mod”• Communicate with RID initiator as necessary• “Recommend Approve” indicates a good RID and
passes on to LM• Merge duplicate RIDs• Clarify poor RIDs before they are elevated to the
Product Owner/Review Team• Flag RIDs on subjects that have already been
decided at CPCB, ERB, etc (Best effort)
Screening Teams
Roles and Responsibilities• Screening Team should attempt to dialogue with
initiator if disposition is other than straight Approve in order to clarify intent and streamline later disposition and review team function (if this bogs us down too much we may need to modify)
• If a large number of RIDs are assigned to a Screening Team, the Lead can assign team members a set of RIDs to screen based on subject and experts needed
• Team Members will recommend disposition to Screening Team Lead
• Can recommend transfer to another Screening Team• MRI will work the tool• Merge parent/child RIDs in the ConCERT RID Tool• Input recommend disposition in the ConCERT RID
Schedule• Planned for August 3-10• May begin meeting and screening RIDs during the
week of 27-31 July 09 at discretion of screening team• RID Schedule and Priority
• Pre-Declared RIDs, As RIDs are sponsored, As team is available
• Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to determine how much meeting time is required
Screening Teams (Continued)
Location• Houston, Space Park • Glenn Research Center for SM and Requirements• MSFC, Huntsville for LAS
RID Tool Procedures• MRI will work the tool, with PIT support as needed• Assign recommended disposition and comments in
“Review” Team field• Add a date and “Screening Team” stamp to
comments• If disposition is “Recommend Withdraw” or
“Approve w/ Mod”• Fill out recommended disposition and comments
field• Send back to the initiator using the feature in the tool• If disposition is “Approve” or passing a RID up to
the next level• Fill out recommended disposition and comments
field• DO NOT USE ACTIONS IN THE TOOL (i.e. Send to
Initiator or Send to Next Review Level)• Instead, transfer the RID to the appropriate Review
Team
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Product Owner
• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel• When a RID is written against a document, the
product owner is the DRD author• When a RID is written against an Architectural
Element, the product owner is the applicable lead (System, Module, or Subsystem)
Definition• Product owner is responsible for developing
proposed disposition (RID impacts and recommendations)
• Assignment of RIDs to Product Owner validated/reassigned as needed (by the integration team)
• DRD POC is the Book Author• Architecture Element POC is the Subsystem
Lead• LM PIT for coordination and help with the RID tool,
as needed• NASA POCs will help facilitate disposition with
initiators, as applicable
Roles and Responsibilities • Review the content of the RID, including
recommended disposition
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Product Owner
• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel• When a RID is written against a document, the
product owner is the DRD author• When a RID is written against an Architectural
Element, the product owner is the applicable lead (System, Module, or Subsystem)
Definition• Product owner is responsible for developing
proposed disposition (RID impacts and recommendations)
• Assignment of RIDs to Product Owner validated/reassigned as needed (by the integration team)
• DRD POC is the Book Author• Architecture Element POC is the Subsystem
Lead• LM PIT for coordination and help with the RID tool,
as needed• NASA POCs will help facilitate disposition with
initiators, as applicable
Roles and Responsibilities • Review the content of the RID, including
recommended disposition
Product Owner
Roles and Responsibilities (Cont.)• Coordinate with appropriate product teams/SPTs as
necessary (requirement changes, changes to design baseline, design impacts, schedule impacts, and cost impacts)
• Assess design impacts and propose recommended solution
• Make initial determination of whether the RID is funded and/or in-scope
• Identify if there is a schedule impact. If so, characterize believed impact.
• Identify if there is a cost impact • Elevate to IPT Management to determine if a
LCC is required• Coordinate with RID Initiator to clarify issues
• Enter proposed disposition for review by Review Team (See Product Owner Guidance chart)
• NOTE: Product Owner does not give an “official” disposition in the tool, nor does their disposition get to be reclama’d by the initiator
NoteProduct Owners are not required to contact the RID
initiator when recommending a disposition. However, it is recommended that when further clarification is needed the Product Owner contact the Initiator for additional dialogue.
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Product Owner
• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel• When a RID is written against a document, the
product owner is the DRD author• When a RID is written against an Architectural
Element, the product owner is the applicable lead (System, Module, or Subsystem)
Definition• Product owner is responsible for developing
proposed disposition (RID impacts and recommendations)
• Assignment of RIDs to Product Owner validated/reassigned as needed (by the integration team)
• DRD POC is the Book Author• Architecture Element POC is the Subsystem
Lead• LM PIT for coordination and help with the RID tool,
as needed• NASA POCs will help facilitate disposition with
initiators, as applicable
Roles and Responsibilities • Review the content of the RID, including
recommended disposition
Product Owner
Roles and Responsibilities (Cont.)• Coordinate with appropriate product teams/SPTs as
necessary (requirement changes, changes to design baseline, design impacts, schedule impacts, and cost impacts)
• Assess design impacts and propose recommended solution
• Make initial determination of whether the RID is funded and/or in-scope
• Identify if there is a schedule impact. If so, characterize believed impact.
• Identify if there is a cost impact • Elevate to IPT Management to determine if a
LCC is required• Coordinate with RID Initiator to clarify issues
• Enter proposed disposition for review by Review Team (See Product Owner Guidance chart)
• NOTE: Product Owner does not give an “official” disposition in the tool, nor does their disposition get to be reclama’d by the initiator
NoteProduct Owners are not required to contact the RID
initiator when recommending a disposition. However, it is recommended that when further clarification is needed the Product Owner contact the Initiator for additional dialogue.
Product Owner
Schedule• Begin RID recommended disposition as follows
• Pre-declared RIDs – Now• All other RIDs – As soon as Screening Team has
assessed and passed along • Product Owner comments are needed by August 17• Runs in parallel with the Screening/Review teams• May query the RID Tool for RIDs in their functional
area starting July 7
Location• LM personnel in Houston, TX or Denver, CO• Coordination with RID Initiators will be virtual
Procedures• ConCERT RID tool will automatically assign RID to
the appropriate DRD Owner• Product Owner should coordinate with the relevant
technical experts in LMCO• Product Owner should comment on whether the RID
is in-scope or not• Product Owner inputs their recommended
disposition
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Product Owner
• Product Owners are primarily LM personnel• When a RID is written against a document, the
product owner is the DRD author• When a RID is written against an Architectural
Element, the product owner is the applicable lead (System, Module, or Subsystem)
Definition• Product owner is responsible for developing
proposed disposition (RID impacts and recommendations)
• Assignment of RIDs to Product Owner validated/reassigned as needed (by the integration team)
• DRD POC is the Book Author• Architecture Element POC is the Subsystem
Lead• LM PIT for coordination and help with the RID tool,
as needed• NASA POCs will help facilitate disposition with
initiators, as applicable
Roles and Responsibilities • Review the content of the RID, including
recommended disposition
Product Owner
Roles and Responsibilities (Cont.)• Coordinate with appropriate product teams/SPTs as
necessary (requirement changes, changes to design baseline, design impacts, schedule impacts, and cost impacts)
• Assess design impacts and propose recommended solution
• Make initial determination of whether the RID is funded and/or in-scope
• Identify if there is a schedule impact. If so, characterize believed impact.
• Identify if there is a cost impact • Elevate to IPT Management to determine if a
LCC is required• Coordinate with RID Initiator to clarify issues
• Enter proposed disposition for review by Review Team (See Product Owner Guidance chart)
• NOTE: Product Owner does not give an “official” disposition in the tool, nor does their disposition get to be reclama’d by the initiator
NoteProduct Owners are not required to contact the RID
initiator when recommending a disposition. However, it is recommended that when further clarification is needed the Product Owner contact the Initiator for additional dialogue.
Product Owner
Schedule• Begin RID recommended disposition as follows
• Pre-declared RIDs – Now• All other RIDs – As soon as Screening Team has
assessed and passed along • Product Owner comments are needed by August 17• Runs in parallel with the Screening/Review teams• May query the RID Tool for RIDs in their functional
area starting July 7
Location• LM personnel in Houston, TX or Denver, CO• Coordination with RID Initiators will be virtual
Procedures• ConCERT RID tool will automatically assign RID to
the appropriate DRD Owner• Product Owner should coordinate with the relevant
technical experts in LMCO• Product Owner should comment on whether the RID
is in-scope or not• Product Owner inputs their recommended
disposition
Product Owner
RID Tool Procedures• The Product Owner does not put in an “official”
disposition into the tool• The RID Initiator cannot reclama the Product
Owner comments• The Product Owner inputs their comments into the
appropriate field• The Review Team will use the Product Owner
comments and recommendations• Product Owner should include the following
information in their comments:• In Scope: Y or N• Schedule Impact: Y or N• Cost Impact: Y or N
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Review Teams
Members• Team Leads (NASA & LM IPT/Module Leads)• Reps from other IPTs/Modules, impacts SPTs, • Reps from MOD, Crew Office, CxP, other key
stakeholders (invited but not mandatory)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• RID Initiators/”Champions”• PIT and MRI
Roles and Responsibilities• Review and evaluate technical content of RID• Make recommended disposition on RIDs that are with-in
scope and funding• Concur with or change the recommended disposition• Select “Recommend Approve”, “Approve w/Mod”, or
“Recommend Withdraw”• Elevate RIDs on key issues to the Pre-Board• Communicate with initiator if discussion is needed
Schedule• Planned for August 12-19• May begin meeting early if the team leads choose to do
so as RIDs become available:• As RIDs are submitted or as team is available• Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to
determine the total meeting time required
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Review Teams
Members• Team Leads (NASA & LM IPT/Module Leads)• Reps from other IPTs/Modules, impacts SPTs, • Reps from MOD, Crew Office, CxP, other key
stakeholders (invited but not mandatory)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• RID Initiators/”Champions”• PIT and MRI
Roles and Responsibilities• Review and evaluate technical content of RID• Make recommended disposition on RIDs that are with-in
scope and funding• Concur with or change the recommended disposition• Select “Recommend Approve”, “Approve w/Mod”, or
“Recommend Withdraw”• Elevate RIDs on key issues to the Pre-Board• Communicate with initiator if discussion is needed
Schedule• Planned for August 12-19• May begin meeting early if the team leads choose to do
so as RIDs become available:• As RIDs are submitted or as team is available• Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to
determine the total meeting time required
Review Teams
Location• Space Park, look for Room Assignments on the PDR
Portal• SM Team and Requirements Team held at Glenn
Research Center, OH • LAS at MSFC, Huntsville , AL• No meetings will require travel – advisable for Team
leads to be co-located
Procedures• Review Team Leads will chair the meeting• Chairs can run the meetings however they see fit,
whatever works to get through their RIDs – however, some level of consistency will be good to not confuse initiators
• Team Members will provide technical expertise on RID issues
• RID Initiators may come to the meeting in person or dial in via telecon
• Review Team Lead will make a recommend disposition• MRI will merge parent and child RIDs in the ConCERT
RID Tool• MRI will input recommended disposition in the
ConCERT RID Tool
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Review Teams
Members• Team Leads (NASA & LM IPT/Module Leads)• Reps from other IPTs/Modules, impacts SPTs, • Reps from MOD, Crew Office, CxP, other key
stakeholders (invited but not mandatory)• Relevant subsystem experts, as required per team• RID Initiators/”Champions”• PIT and MRI
Roles and Responsibilities• Review and evaluate technical content of RID• Make recommended disposition on RIDs that are with-in
scope and funding• Concur with or change the recommended disposition• Select “Recommend Approve”, “Approve w/Mod”, or
“Recommend Withdraw”• Elevate RIDs on key issues to the Pre-Board• Communicate with initiator if discussion is needed
Schedule• Planned for August 12-19• May begin meeting early if the team leads choose to do
so as RIDs become available:• As RIDs are submitted or as team is available• Team Leads need to gauge the quantity of RIDs to
determine the total meeting time required
Review Teams
Location• Space Park, look for Room Assignments on the PDR
Portal• SM Team and Requirements Team held at Glenn
Research Center, OH • LAS at MSFC, Huntsville , AL• No meetings will require travel – advisable for Team
leads to be co-located
Procedures• Review Team Leads will chair the meeting• Chairs can run the meetings however they see fit,
whatever works to get through their RIDs – however, some level of consistency will be good to not confuse initiators
• Team Members will provide technical expertise on RID issues
• RID Initiators may come to the meeting in person or dial in via telecon
• Review Team Lead will make a recommend disposition• MRI will merge parent and child RIDs in the ConCERT
RID Tool• MRI will input recommended disposition in the
ConCERT RID Tool
Review Teams
RID Tool Procedures• MRI will run the tool during the meeting, with PIT
support as needed• Review Team will edit the recommended disposition
given by the Screening Team (the same field is used)• Review Team will add their comments and rationale to
the same field as the Screening Team• Provide a date and name stamp (“Review Team”) for
all comments• If disposition is “Recommend Withdraw” or “Approve w/
Mods”• Send RID back to Initiator using feature in Tool
• If disposition is “Approve” or elevating to Pre-Board• Assign disposition and input comments• Use Tool to send RID to next level (Pre-Board)
• This is the step where the RID is elevated
Project Orion
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Pre-Board
• NASA Orion VI&D chaired board• Provides initial evaluation of the Project’s success in
meeting the PDR entrance and success criteria
Roles & Responsibilities• Resolve and disposition elevated or disputed RIDs• Identify issues that need to go forward to the Board
(due to significant cost, schedule, or technical impact/risk)
Project Orion
Orion RID Process FlowProject Orion
DRAFT
Board
• NASA Orion Project Manager chaired• Evaluates the Project’s success in meeting the PDR
success criteria• Approving the basis of and viable path for
proceeding to the Critical Design Review
Roles & Responsibilities• Hears all reclama elevated to the board level and
makes the final decision regarding RID disposition• Evaluates any issue that has been brought forward
to the Board (due to significant cost, schedule, or technical impact/risk)
• Is the final decision authority for dispositioning of on all RIDs
• Ensures the closure of RIDs resulting from PDR
Project Orion
Orion PDR RID Metrics
Orion vs. External Sponsored RIDs
Orion, 2043
External, 1582
RIDs Withdrawn ApprovedOrion 2043 860 1183External 1582 787 795
Project Orion
67
Project Orion
Orion PDR RID Metrics
Discipline # of RIDsAv & Sw 605Av: Comm & Track 22Av: C&DH 30ICDs 107CM 452LAS 267Con Ops 204Vehicle 142ICCS 120Mech 115SM 126ECLSS 124EPS 103Propulsion 76Pyrotechnics 88GN&C 65Structures 72Hazard Analysis 45T&V 204Crew Systems 88MGSE 49Drawings & Models 37LRS 57EGSE 43Manufacturing & Assembly 23PTC 26Wiring 40TPS 23Other 272
Orion PDR Sponsored RIDs by Discipline
CM, 452
LAS, 267
Mech, 115
SM, 126
ECLSS, 124
EPS, 103
Propulsion, 76
Pyrotechnics, 88
ICDs, 107
Av: C&DH, 30
Av: Comm & Track, 22
Con Ops, 204
LRS, 57
EGSE, 43
Vehicle, 142
Wiring, 40Other, 272
Av & Sw , 605
Crew Systems, 88
Hazard Analysis, 45
T&V, 204
GN&C, 65
ICCS, 120