Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Bordi, Francesco

Publications and source records attributed to Bordi, Francesco.

A New Approach to Mission Classification and Risk Management for NASA Space Flight Missions

The NASA risk classification system is meant to uide space mission development from formulation through completion of implementation. It is also meant to be the basis on which program and project managers develop and implement appropriate mission assurance and risk management strategies for the mission. In order to be useful, the risk classification system needs to provide consistent and reproducible classification results so that missions may be designed with the appropriate components, subsystems, and testing philosophy, all of which impacts mission schedule and cost. In a cost-constrained environment, a clear, robust, and reproducible approach to mission implementation becomes more critical than ever before. Once a project's risk classification level is established, the managers can define the appropriate management controls, systems engineering processes, mission assurance requirements, safety, and testing for that mission. The current NASA mission classification system will be reviewed before a new system is proposed.NASA manages space flight missions according to a four-tiered classification which assumes increasing levels of risk. We argue that risk does not change between classes. What changes are the means available to reduce risk. In performance-driven missions, the project will spend money in order to maintain performance without reducing margins. In cost-constrained missions, performance will be reduced in order to stay within budget or to maintain schedule: measurement requirements may be traded, design life may be reduced, or both. We then propose a new approach to the classification of NASA space flight missions, based on an assessment of how flexible the requirements, how exquisite the measurements, how long the lifetime, and how rigid the budget.Our proposed approach makes possible a clearer differentiation between classification levels and more effective guidance to program and project managers.

Bordi, Francesco↗

Explanation of Change (EoC) Study: Approach and Findings

This study investigated thirty historical NASA science missions to explain the cost change experienced. The study included investigation of historical milestone and monthly status report documentation followed by interviews with key project personnel. Based on the information collected, the reasons for cost change were binned, at the highest level, into four separate categories: NASA External, Project External, Internal Planning, and Internal Execution. The results identified that roughly a third of the change is outside of the project's control, a third is due to assumptions made in project planning, and a third is due to the inherent difficulty of building highly complex, one-of-a-kind, cutting edge, Earth and space science missions.

Bitten, Robert E.↗

Explanation of Change (EoC) Study: Considerations and Implementation Challenges

This paper discusses the implementation of considerations resulting from a study investigating the cost change experienced by historical NASA science missions. The study investigated historical milestone and monthly status report documentation followed by interviews with key project personnel. The reasons for cost change were binned as being external to NASA, external to the project and internal to the project relative to the project's planning and execution. Based on the results of the binning process and the synthesis of project meetings and interviews, ten considerations were made with the objective to decrease the potential for cost change in future missions. Although no one magic bullet consideration was discovered, the considerations taken as a whole should help reduce cost and schedule change in future NASA missions.

Bitten, Robert E.↗

Enabling Exploration Missions Now: Applications of On-orbit Staging

Future NASA Exploration goals are difficult to meet using current launch vehicle implementations and techniques. We introduce a concept of On-Orbit Staging (OOS) using multiple launches into a Low Earth orbit (LEO) staging area to increase payload mass and reduce overall cost for exploration initiative missions. This concept is a forward-looking implementation of ideas put forth by Oberth and Von Braun to address the total mission design. Applying staging throughout the mission and utilizing technological advances in propulsion efficiency and architecture enable us to show that exploration goals can be met in the next decade. As part of this architecture, we assume the readiness of automated rendezvous, docking, and assembly technology.

Folta, David C.↗

A spacecraft for the Earth Observing System

An overview is given of the scientific instruments on the Earth Observing System (EOS-AM) spacecraft. The parameters that most strongly affect the performance, system design, and cost of that spacecraft are discussed. Alternative design for EOS-AM are evaluated in order to produce a single consistent definition of the system that meets most or all of the mission objectives.

Taylor, Raynor L.↗

The Earth Observing System's Space Measurement System

The EOS Space Measurement System (SMS) is intended to provide global earth science data from a low-altitude orbit on a long-term, sustained basis. The SMS consists of a series of small and intermediate spacecraft carrying a diverse set of scientific instruments. The instruments include optical, IR, and microwave sensors that provide detailed imagtes of the earth's surface; tropospheric and stratospheric sounders that provide vertical profiles of parameters such as temperature, trace gas concentration, and humdity; and accurate positioning instruments.

Scolese, Christopher J.↗

Considerations on formation flying separations for earth observing satellite missions

We assume that scientific requirements (or other mission requirements) call for simultaneous observations from sensors located on different formation-flying spacecraft, and assess how well various kinds of formations of two and three spacecraft can meet these simultaneity requirements. We simulate two types of formation, one where the slave spacecraft moves with respect to the reference spacecraft, and the other where the two spacecraft are kept at a constant time separation. For each type of formation we consider two attitudes: a perfect local vertical local horizontal (LVLH) and an attitude which represents the maximum allowable mission tolerance offset from the mission requirements for attitude determination. We simulate formations of multiple spacecraft and determine how well they can perform simultaneous observations. For each spacecraft we compute the instantaneous ground projection of the center of the imager's fieId of view and plot the movement of the instantaneous ground projection of one spacecraft in the formation relative to the other. The size and shape of this effective ground target parametrize the size and shape of the actual ground target as well as the size and shape of the imager's field of view and the percentage of overlap required.

Folta, David↗

Field of view location and formation flying for polar orbiting missions

The problem of flying an earth observing mission using a group of observatories flying in formation, rather than a single observatory, is addressed. Contraints placed on the design of the observatories and of the mission, if it is required that the instantaneous field of views of the two instruments overlap by a specified amount, are determined. The complexities of formation flying are found to greatly outweigh simpler solutions which combine instruments on a single spacecraft payload. While formation flying may be beneficial when crossing times and simultaneity arguments are not stringent, it is not practical for EOS. Accomplishment of the EOS scientific mission requires the simultaneous measurement of a basic set of earth system science parameters; it also requires that many events be observed by groups of instruments looking through the same atmospheric path.

Scolese, Christopher↗