Schaible.dawn

Engineering Excellence 1

Broad-Based TeamsCase Study #2 – Max Launch Abort System

Project Management Challenge 2009Daytona Beach, Florida

February 24-25, 2009

Dawn M. SchaibleNASA Engineering and Safety Center


NESC Background


• In 2003, the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was formed as a response to a Columbia Accident Investigation Board observation

• The NESC mission is to provide the Agency’s Programs and Projects with rigorous independent technical perspectives on their most critical technical issues

Five years later – The NESC remains independent:

• Centrally managed and funded through the Office of Chief Engineer• Small staff of senior leaders and technical experts to lead broad-based engineering

teams in “tiger team” fashion• Unaffiliated with and unbiased by any specific NASA Program or Center• Has an independent engineering chain of command to assure an avenue for

consideration of all points of view• Facilitating hands-on design and development experience

NESC Overview


NESC emphasis is to create broad-based teams to enable networks that discourage silos

– Recruit team membership from a broad community

– Increase inter-Center knowledge and information flow

– Facilitate inter-Center collaboration

– Encourage inter-Center relationships and communities of practice

NESC Background


MLAS Project Overview


Original Action

• NASA’s former Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, Scott Horowitz, asked the NESC to develop an alternate design as risk mitigation for the Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) concept. The alternate concept will be demonstrated by a pad abort test

– The highest risk (at that time) for the Orion LAS design was the Attitude Control Motor (ACM)

– Team is focused on LAS concepts that eliminate or mitigate the need for complex controls

• “Max” LAS (MLAS) named in honor of Maxime Faget, the original designer of the Project Mercury capsule and holder of the patent for the “Aerial Capsule Emergency Separation Device” (escape tower)


MLAS Task, Approach, and Success Criteria

• Task: – Develop an alternate LAS design as risk mitigation for the

Orion LAS. Demonstrate the alternate concept with a pad abort flight test

• Approach: – Strive to identify the simplest design that will satisfy launch

abort requirements while maximizing nominal ascent performance

– Implement flight test by using off-the-shelf parts wherever possible to minimize cost and shorten schedule

• Success Criteria: – Obtain sufficient flight test data to assess performance,

validate models/tools, and support an MLAS Objective System design


MLAS Conceptual Design

Flight TestVehicle

Candidate MLAS Objective System

ReplaceWith

Current Orion ALAS

MLAS Flight TestVehicle Design


MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Configuration

• Flight Test Vehicle (FTV) configuration has evolved as the design has matured, driven by rapid prototype/off-the-shelf hardware approach

• Current MLAS configuration has four center-clustered MK-70 motors aft-mounted in a separable boost skirt

– Early plan to fly forward-mounted motors would have required development of a manifold to accommodate thrust dispersions

– Manifold development posed a high project risk– Aft-mounted MK-70 motors addressed the thrust dispersion problem

without the manifold

• Objective system flight stability hardware simulated with planarfins attached to a separable coast skirt

• FTV flight will demonstrate stable coast configuration, drogue-assisted turnaround, Crew Module (CM)-fairing separation, and alternate CM parachute recovery


Coast Skirt

Boost Skirt

Modified Sears-Haack FairingMotor Simulators

Separation Joints

Internally-Mounted Motors

Turnaround Drogues

Drag Plates

MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Configuration


Forward Fairing

CM Simulator

Coast Skirt

Boost Skirt

Motor Cage

Frangible Joints

MLAS Flight Test Vehicle Expanded View


Candidate Objective System – FTV Relationship

Forward Fairing Shape& Motor Protuberances

Conventional FinsSized to Match GridFin Stability Increment toAchieve Early Passive FlightDemonstration

Boost Motors Moved Aftto Eliminate Motor ManifoldRisk to Flight Test

FlightTestVehicle

Booster


MLAS Concept of Operations

CM Delivery to Release Point Conditions

Stable Coast Separate Stabilization DevicesAnd Begin Reorientation

ReorientationAnd Stabilization

Pad Abort Initiation Powered Ascent

Stabilizing Grid Fin Deployment

Boost SkirtSeparation

Separate Fins

MLAS Flight Test Objectives

Coast SkirtSeparation

Candidate Objective System

Flight Test Vehicle

Flight Test Data

Design Trade Space


CM Parachute Demonstration Concept of Ops

FTV reorientation via drogue parachutes in Forward Fairing

CM drogue parachute deployment

CM main parachute

deployment

CM separation from MLAS Forward Fairing

CM Forward Bay Cover release to extract main

parachutes


MLAS Benefits to Constellation Program

• Demonstration of pad abort with passive controls

– First demonstration of a passively-stabilized LAS on a vehicle in this size and weight class

• Collection of full-scale aeroacoustic environment data

– First test to acquire full-scale aeroacoustic environment data on a faired capsule concept

• Demonstration of CM fairing/separation

– First test to demonstrate full scale fairing/CM separation and measure associated aerodynamic and orientation data

• Demonstration of CM main parachute deployment using Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster recovery-based system


MLAS Benefits to Agency

• Demonstration of rapid large-scale design and concurrent hardware procurement

• Opportunity to anchor aerodynamic analysis to flight data for a design strongly influenced by analytical models and engineering assumptions

• Accumulation of flight data for a unique length-to-diameter vehicle

• Unique opportunity for hands-on training afforded the next generation of Agency engineers

Resident Engineer Omar Torres testing separation dynamics at University of Washington

Transonic Wind Tunnel Testing at Calspan


MLAS Team Structure


SpaceFibreG. Rakow

CM ParachutesC Shreves

MLASProject Management

Project Manager – R RoeDeputy PM – T Wilson

Chief Engineer – M Gilbert

Project Planning and Control

L Leybold

Mentorsand

Resident Engineers

S&MAG. Kelm

SE&ID Schaible

J Berry - MSE

AerodynamicsD Schuster

PropulsionC Schafer

Structures and MechanismsM Kirsch / T Palm

SoftwareM Aguilar

Avionicsand Instrumentation

M Davis

LandingD Yuchnovicz

Ground OpsB Underwood / S Minute

B Hall – Vehicle MgrNESC Technology Demonstrators

Flight MechanicsN Dennehy

Loads and DynamicsC Larsen / K Elliott

MLAS Team Structure


MLAS Team Composition

• Extended MLAS team comprised of 150 members, including engineers, analysts, mentors, and resident engineers from across the Agency and industry


Residents and Mentors

Gary Dittemore (JSC) T.K. MattinglyGeminesse Dorsey (JSC) Jerry McCullough Joe Grady (GRC) Tom ModlinSamantha Manning (KSC) Dave ShemwellSamuel Miller (LaRC) Milt SilveiraTheodore Muench (GSFC) Bob WestTerrian Nowden (GRC)Sarah Quach (KSC)Jerry Sterling (GSFC)Omar Torres (LaRC)

Residents Mentors


MLAS Resident Engineer Opportunity

• Unique opportunity for direct, on-going interaction between MLAS residents, NASA Technical Fellows, and Apollo-era veterans

• Limited scope and short duration of the MLAS project provides rare systems engineering experience

• “Off-line” nature of the project provides an opportunity to try-and-fail

Resident engineers

assisting in composite fin

testing

Resident engineers Sam Miller and Gary Dittemore performing camera vibration testing


MLAS Project Management/Systems Engineering Approach


MLAS Project Management Approach

• Focus on over-arching objectives– Meeting over-arching objectives defines MLAS Project success

– Manage critical path

– Additional requirements to buy themselves in

• MLAS Team requirements and design baseline are controlled by team’s MLAS Configuration Control Board (CCB)

• Project Manager – Chair

• Deputy Project Manager

• Chief Engineer

• Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Lead

• Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Lead

• Subteam Leads

• Periodic co-locations and virtual integrated design sessions

• Providing design, development, and test training opportunity through Resident Engineer Program


MLAS Rapid Prototype Philosophy

• Limited flight test objectives

• Conservative loads and dynamic environments

• Proto-flight structural margins

• Low cost, minimum lead time materials and processes - Not mass driven

• Statically stable during boost and coast

• Ballast vehicle and adjust launch stool angle to meet trajectory constraints

• Design schedule prioritized by production and assembly sequence

• Maximum use of proven, off-the-shelf hardware

Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gulfport


MLAS Systems Engineering Process

• Mission Systems Engineer identified to lead design and trade study activities• S&MA representatives included as part of core SE&I team• FTV configuration designed using rapid prototype philosophy• Utilize Products Needs List to track data deliverables between teams• Defining documents:

– Requirements, Interface Control Documents, Design Data Book, Flight Test Plan, Ground Operations Plan

– Minimized formal documentation and eliminated boilerplate information as much as practical

• Streamlined configuration control process – Utilize standing meeting for MLAS CCB for design changes and reviews

• Tailored independent review process – Goal is a thorough, independent review with a variety of perspectives,

experiences, and processes considered

• Safety process employs hazard analysis and risk management processes without detailed failure mode and effects analysis


MLAS Review Process

• MLAS tailored independent review process

– Not the formalized Preliminary/Critical Design Review process

– Conducting a series of Independent Technical Reviews (ITR)

• ITR1 conducted in November 2007- Gain confidence to procure long-lead

materials and tooling• ITR2 conducted in April 2008

- Conducted sub team peer reviews in preparation

- Gain confidence to fabricate flight hardware and ground support equipment

• ITR3 planned for March 2009- Gain confidence to conduct the pad

abort flight test ITR 2 at LaRC in April 2008


Collaboration Approach


Collaboration Approach

• Utilizing PDMLink in Windchill for configuration management

• Virtual team environment – Using WebEx and Windchill

– Monthly co-location of team

– Establish multi-disciplinary teams to address integrated issues

– Virtual integrated design sessions

– Utilize instant messaging and desktop sharing


General Co-Location Goals

• Goals of co-locating:– Common understanding of project goals and success criteria– Facilitate rapid decision making– Reinforce project schedule, critical path, and upcoming

milestones– Align expectations for upcoming deliverables– Build teamwork

Team co-locations at LaRC


Co-Location Approach

• Co-location sessions are organized working sessions, not a formal meeting/design review

• Begin each co-location with a kick-off briefing– Reinforce project success criteria and exit criteria

• Begin each day with a 30 minute kick-off meeting at 8:30– Meeting has a definite end

– Assign actions for small groups to work, with achievable deliverables

– Identify hot topics for the day

• Utilize white board to schedule “hot topics” – a list of meetings, times, participants, and objectives

• Meetings, priorities, and hot topics facilitated by SE&I

• All team members, including mentor and resident teams, expected to attend each co-location if possible


Between Co-Locations

• Regular Team Tag-ups – Team leads or representatives

expected to participate

– Communicate major results, issues, and product needs

– Frequency of meetings adjusted during each stage of project

– Splinter meetings scheduled as needed

– Agendas for tag-up meetings are projected a week ahead of time and distributed daily

– Use forum for MLAS CCBs as needed

• Conduct periodic schedule reviews and action status reviews• Communication, communication, communication

Team Tag-up at Wallops Flight Facility


Project Status


Project Status

Tooling plug foam machining

Crew Module simulator


Project Status

Forward Bay Cover outfitting with main parachutes (left) and drogue parachutes (right)


Project Status

Tooling plug foam machiningCM simulator fabrication complete and outfitting underwayBoost skirt and coast skirt assembly,Forward fairing quarter panels


Project Status

Tooling plug foam machiningCM simulator fabrication complete and outfitting underwayForward fairing quarter panel


Project Status

Crew Module avionics buildup


Project Status

CM avionics buildup complete and integrated test underwayComposite fins


Upcoming Milestones

• Vehicle integration and test complete – early March 2009• Independent Technical Review #3 – early March 2009• Vehicle transfer to pad complete – Mid-March 2009• Target flight test date – March 27, 2009

Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gulfport