Ianson

Slide 1PM Challenge 2011

Orbiting Carbon Observatory - 2:Recovering from Mission Loss

Eric IansonProgram Executive

Science Mission Directorate


Introduction – Launch of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)

February 24, 20091:59 AM PST

Approximately17 minutes later


Now What? Do we rebuild and fly another OCO?

• Is there a scientific urgency?– Does the science community view the OCO measurement as a top priority?– Can OCO algorithms be used to translate other data sources (NASA’s AIRS/JAXA’s GOSAT)?– Can we wait for the next generation of CO2 measurements (ASCENDS)?

• Is there political support for another OCO mission?– Obama administration emphasis on Climate Change– Congressional interests are unpredictable

• Where would the funding for another mission come from?– Taking funding from other missions with important Earth science priorities hurts the NASA Earth

Science program – Can new funding be provided? If so, when?

• Can we combine an OCO-like instrument with other instruments/missions?– Scientific synergies/compromises– Cost– Technology challenges

• If we fly another OCO-like mission do we include “modest upgrades” in capability?– Adding a Carbon Monoxide channel– Improving the instrument design

• What launch vehicle can we use?– Taurus XL- Can the failure be understood and prevented in the future? Will it be available?– Other vehicles – Cost, availability, interface changes and loads/dynamics impacts?


• Revalidated science need by NASA-convened community research team (April 09) and unsolicited National Research Council (NRC) Letter Report (July 09)

• Expanded already-planned science collaboration with JAXA for GOSAT/Ibuki satellite measurement validation, advancement of carbon science, accelerated maturity of OCO algorithms/processing

• Examined replacement options• Direct rebuild of OCO (identical mission concept)• Rebuild of an OCO mission with science upgrades, such as adding a CO channel• Co-manifesting OCO-like instrument with another planned mission• OCO-like instrument on the International Space Station• Co-manifesting OCO rebuild observatory on a shared launch vehicle

• Initiated proactive schedule risk reductions (utilizing residual OCO funding)• Procured key obsolete instrument components• Procured long-lead parts for instrument• Developed work-around for obsolete spacecraft flight computer• Assessed OCO spare parts• Updated drawings

Immediate Actions(1-6 months following mission loss)


Seeking Support

• Throughout the summer of 2009 SMD’s Earth Science Division worked with the NASA Office of the Administrator on a proposed approach for an OCO replacement based on the actions taken following the loss of the mission

• In Sept 2009 NASA presented a plan to Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)/Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a “Carbon Copy” direct rebuild on dedicated launch vehicle, using a nearly identical approach as OCO:

• Project Management to be assigned to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)• OCO instrument built by the JPL with minimum required design changes• Spacecraft rebuild by Orbital Science Corporation with minimum required design

changes• Taurus-XL launch vehicle (Agency working on return to flight actions for Glory

Mission)• Fly in the A-Train Constellation• 28-month development from Authority to Proceed (ATP) - Key Decision Point – C

(KDP-C)• Estimated Life-Cycle Cost and cost profile developed

• No upgrades in capability (complicates the design and adds risk to the cost/schedule estimates)


Funding Put in Place for OCO-2

• In the FY10 budget NASA was directed to fund OCO-2 not less than $50M

– $25M in new funds– $25M out of existing program

▪ ~$7M has been funded from remaining OCO Base Funds▪ ~$18M is to be funded with ARRA

• The FY11 President’s Budget identified a funding profile for OCO-2

• For planning purposes, SMD’s Earth Science Division allocated this funding between the project, launch vehicle and program-level reserves


OCO-2 Mission Development Plansand Objectives

Even the most aggressive schedules for NASA science missions typically take 6-12 months of pre-formulation planning and a Formulation period (Phases A & B) of 18-24 months. OCO-2 had much more challenging objectives:

•To complete the successful development and launch of the OCO-2 satellite as expeditiously as possible

– Working to maintain the ATP+28 month development cycle NASA presented to OSTP/OMB ▪ Supported by the FY11 President’s Budget

– Leverages the work performed during OCO development– Includes a full set of instrument spare components

•To use the period from Feb 2010 – Sep 2010 to restart and formulate the mission implementation approach to be ready for ATP on Oct 1, 2010.

– Addressing formulation activities and requirements in FY10

•To use Oct 1, 2010 as the mission kick-off date, coincident with KDP-C

•To comply with the NASA implementation requirements wherever possible and reasonable, only applying minimal waivers, as required, to ensure mission success (cost, schedule, and performance)


OCO-2 Schedule

Activities conducted during this 8-month Tailored Formulation Period are described in the following slides

01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04

FY2016 FY2017FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

Proposed OCO-2Schedule

Conventional Project Life-Cycle

Pre-A(6 mo)

Phase A(9 mo)

Phase B(12 mo)

Phase C(24 mo)

Phase D(12 mo)

Phase E(24 mo)

21 mo

MCR MDR(PNAR)

PDR(NAR) CDR SIR ORR LRD PLAR

Pre-A(6 mo)

TFP(8 mo)

Phase C(16.5 mo)

Phase D(11.5 mo)

Phase E(24 mo)

CDR(NAR) SIR ORR LRD PLAR

36 mo

SRR

8 mo

28 mo

Tailored Formulation Period(8 mo)

CDR(NAR)

Peer Reviews (w/SRB Participation)


Tailored Formulation Period Approach

• OCO-2 Tailored Formulation Period (TFP) activities:– Address all NASA Formulation gate products– Conduct a series of Peer Reviews (14) with SRB involvement– Conduct a combined Critical Design Review (CDR)/Non-Advocate Review (NAR)

prior to KDP-C– Maximize the use of original OCO designs and documentation wherever possible– Employ sole source contracting with key vendors used on the original OCO project– Authorize long lead and obsolete part procurements

• Because of the advanced maturity level of the OCO-2 project, the following standard NASA practices were NOT to be conducted as part of the TFP:

– Formal KDP A and B– The following Formulation technical reviews:

▪ Mission Concept Review (MCR)▪ Mission Definition Review (MDR)▪ System Requirements Review (SRR)/Preliminary Non-Advocate Review (PNAR)▪ Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

At the conclusion of the TFP, OCO-2 would be ready to enter a standard Phase C/D


OCO-2 will complete all NPR 7120.5 Formulation Gate Products Prior to KDP-C

Products Pre-A Phase A§ Phase BKDP A KDP B KDP C

HQ and Program Products1. FAD Approved2. Program Requirements on the Project

Draft Baseline Update

3. ASM minutes Baseline

4. NEPA Compliance Documentation EA

5. Inter-Agency & International Agrmts Baseline

6. Mishap Control Plan

Project Technical Products1. Mission Concept Report Preliminar

yBaseline

2. System Level Requirements Preliminary Baseline3. Preliminary Design Report Baseline4. Missions Operations Concept Preliminary Baseline5. Tech Readiness Assessment Rept Baseline6. Missile Sys Pre-Launch Safety Pkg Preliminary7. Detailed Design Report8. As-built H/W & S/W Documentation9. Verification and Validation Report10. Operations Handbook11. Orbital Debris Assessment Initial Preliminary12. End of Mission Plan Initial Preliminary13. Mission ReportProj. Planning, Cost, & Schedule Prod.1. Work Agreements for Next Phase Baseline** Baseline2. Management Baseline Draft Preliminary Baseline3. Project Plan Preliminary Baseline4. CADRe Preliminary Baseline5. Planetary Protection Plan PPC Baseline6. Nuclear Safety Launch Approval Plan Baseline

7. Bus. Case Analysis for Infrastructure Preliminary Baseline8. Range Safety Risk Management Plan Preliminary9. Sys Decommissioning/ Disposal PlanKDP Readiness Products1. SRB Report Final Final Final2. Project Manager Recommendation Final Final Final

3. CMC Recommendation Final Final Final4. Program Manager Recommendation Final Final Final5. MD-PMC Recommendation Final Final Final

6. Governing PMC Recommendation Final Final Final

Products Pre-A TFPKickoff KDP C

HQ and Program Products1. FAD Approved2. Program Requirements on the Project Draft Baseline

3. ASM minutes Baseline

4. NEPA Compliance Documentation EA

5. Inter-Agency & International Agrmts Baseline

6. Mishap Control Plan

Project Technical Products

1. Mission Concept Report Baseline2. System Level Requirements Baseline

3. Preliminary Design Report Baseline4. Missions Operations Concept Baseline5. Tech Readiness Assessment Rept Baseline

6. Missile Sys Pre-Launch Safety Pkg Preliminary7. Detailed Design Report8. As-built H/W & S/W Documentation9. Verification and Validation Report10. Operations Handbook11. Orbital Debris Assessment Preliminary12. End of Mission Plan Preliminary13. Mission ReportProj. Planning, Cost, & Schedule Prod.

1. Work Agreements for Next Phase Baseline

2. Management Baseline Baseline3. Project Plan Baseline4. CADRe Baseline5. Planetary Protection Plan N/A6. Nuclear Safety Launch Approval Plan N/A

7. Bus. Case Analysis for Infrastructure Baseline

8. Range Safety Risk Management Plan Preliminary9. Sys Decommissioning/ Disposal PlanKDP Readiness Products1. SRB Report Final

2. Project Manager Recommendation Final

3. CMC Recommendation Final

4. Program Manager Recommendation Final

5. MD-PMC Recommendation Final Final

6. Governing PMC Recommendation Final Final

NPR 7120.5

OCO2


OCO-2 will complete all NPR 7120.5 Formulation Project Control Plans Prior to KDP-C

NPR 7120.5 OCO-2

Project Plan – Control Plans

Pre-Phase A Phase A Phase B

KDP A KDP B KDP C1. Technical, Schedule, and Cost Control Plan

Preliminary Baseline

2. Safety and Mission Assurance Plan


3. Risk Management Plan Preliminary Baseline4. Acquisition Plan Preliminary Baseline5. Technology Development Plan

Baseline

6. Systems Engineering Management Plan

Baseline

7. Software Management Plan Preliminary Baseline8. Review Plan Preliminary Baseline9. Missions Operations Plan Preliminary10. Environmental Management Plan

Baseline

11. Logistics Plan Preliminary 12. Science Data Management Plan

Preliminary

13. Information and Configuration Management Plan


14. Security Plan Preliminary Baseline15. Export Control Plan Preliminary Baseline

Project Plan – Control Plans

Pre-Phase A TFP

Kickoff KDP C1. Technical, Schedule, and Cost Control Plan

Baseline

2. Safety and Mission Assurance Plan

Baseline

3. Risk Management Plan Baseline

4. Acquisition Plan Baseline5. Technology Development Plan

Baseline

6. Systems Engineering Management Plan

Baseline

7. Software Management Plan Baseline

8. Review Plan Baseline9. Missions Operations Plan Preliminary

10. Environmental Management Plan

Baseline

11. Logistics Plan Preliminary 12. Science Data Management Plan

Preliminary

13. Information and Configuration Management Plan

Baseline

14. Security Plan Baseline15. Export Control Plan Baseline


Tailored Formulation Events (1 of 2)

• FY10 Formulation Kickoff Meeting (Feb 24) – SMD DPMC– Provided NASA direction for Formulation– Release of a Formulation Authorization Document (FAD) to the Project– Outline a schedule of NASA reviews leading to KDP-C in Oct 2010

• Coordination of Tailored Formulation Period with key Agency Stakeholders to get their support and inputs

– Program Analysis & Evaluation Office (PA&E)– Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE)– Associate Administrator

• Development of Waiver against 7120.5 Formulation Activities– Submitted by ESSP Program Office– Approved by NASA OCE on March 8, 2010

• Acquisition Strategy Meeting (March 8) – SMD/Agency Level– Approved Tailored Formulation approach (inc. waiving KDP-A&B; tech reviews etc)

• Program Level Requirements Review (March 17) – ESD/ESSP Program Office– Agreed on the PLRA (Level 1 Requirements)– Highlighted any differences from OCO; Resolved issues


Tailored Formulation Events (2 of 2)

• Implementation Planning Meeting (April 19) – ESD/Program Office– Project provided a detailed plan for meeting the TFP requirements and a draft Project Plan for

mission implementation

• Project Peer Reviews (February - July)– Project level reviews to analyze the OCO-2 requirements and design with emphasis on

changes from original OCO– SRB members with relevant experience participated in peer reviews

• Combined CDR/NAR (August 25-26)– System maturity brought to CDR level during the TFP– Provides project baseline & is the pre-cursor review for KDP-C in Oct 2010– SRB-Level Review– Scope well defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR)– Joint Confidence Level (JCL) assessment conducted– Successful CDR/NAR – No issues or concerns; 1 action item; 2 advisories accepted by project

At the conclusion of the TFP, OCO-2 was deemed ready to conduct a KDP-C and enter a standard Phase C/D


Other Issues Addressed DuringTailored Formulation Period

• Sole-source subcontracts required to maintain 28 month implementation– JPL/CALTECH contract sole source approvals in place

▪ Spacecraft: Orbital Sciences Corporation (OCO Spacecraft Provider)▪ Instrument: In-House JPL Build with subcontracts to OCO Vendors

• Long-lead/obsolete part procurements approach authorized in the FAD

• OCO Orbital Debris waivers resubmitted and approved for OCO-2 – May 2010

• Accelerated launch vehicle competitive procurement process conducted by NASA Launch Services Program to ensure launch vehicle selection before expiration of NLS contract – June 2010

• Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed with NOAA/GOES-R for two cryocooler assemblies - July 2010


NASA Commits to OCO-2 Mission

• On Sept 24, 2010 (19 months after the loss of OCO), NASA approved OCO-2 to enter Phase C (via the SMD Directorate Program Management Council)

– Life Cycle Cost Commitment = $350M ($30M less than the FY11 President’s Budget)

– Schedule Commitment = February 2013 LRD (consistent with the initial proposed approach to OSTP/OMB)


Lessons from the OCO-2 Effort

• Before proposing a recommended solution, define (by programmatic direction) a constrained (but sufficiently broad) set of allowable alternatives to be fully explored

• Build a compelling case for the selected course of action• Engage the appropriate stakeholders inside (HQ and Centers) and outside (OSTP,

OMB, etc) the Agency throughout the process• Standard Agency processes and procedures can be tailored, but it requires

thorough planning and coordination• While specific NASA requirements can be waived, efforts must be made to address

the intent of these requirements• Any non-standard approach to a NASA project requires a tightly coordinated effort

between the Project, Program, Center(s), and Mission Directorate• Creative solutions require explicit documentation (e.g. FAD, ToR, PLRA, Task

Plans, Waivers, etc)• To successfully implement a rapid-turn around replacement mission, the design

capabilities must be identical to the previous mission (non-recurring engineering must be constrained to be ONLY that necessary for parts obsolescence)

• Project needs to be vigilant during formulation and implementation to ensure that the changes to the original design are indeed minimized to only those necessary (beware of requirements creep)


Questions?

Ianson

Technology

oco mission

oco development

planned mission oco

oco measurement

oco replacement

fund oco

residual oco funding

oco identical mission