Implementation Challenges for Responsive Space Architectures

Current space acquisition programs are often characterized by long-development cycles, cost overruns, and changing requirements. In an effort to match the time constants associated with space system development and operations to the needs of the system's respective users, operationally responsive space (ORS) architectures have been proposed. Fractionated spacecraft represent one potential architecture for achieving operational responsiveness. Fractionated spacecraft consist of physically independent, free-flying modules composed of various subsystems. These modules collaborate with one another on-orbit to provide a particular level of service delivery to the fractionated spacecraft's respective users. Although ORS architectures may sacrifice performance in traditional measures of effectiveness, ORS offers large potential improvements in matching the pace of change in user requirements with the timeliness of obtaining new capability on-orbit. While the purported benefits of ORS are well-documented in the literature, and technology development programs are already underway, there are several non-technical challenges that must be addressed as well. These challenges include aligning the economic incentives of stakeholders, integrating ORS into the current acquisition process, overcoming political inertia associated with legacy approaches, and ensuring that ORS capabilities complement existing architectures. Therefore, it is imperative that ORS development efforts account for the full-spectrum of challenges. Based upon a framework of technological, organizational, economic, and political challenges, implementation strategies for ORS are developed. These strategies are explored through an analysis of fractionated spacecraft as an example of an operationally responsive system.

[1]  Kevin Otto,et al.  An empirical foundation for product flexibility , 2005 .

[2]  Adam Michael Ross,et al.  Managing unarticulated value : changeability in multi-attribute tradespace exploration , 2006 .

[3]  Annalisa L. Weigel,et al.  Assessing the Flexibility Provided by Fractionated Spacecraft , 2005 .

[4]  Raymond J. Sedwick,et al.  Grand Challenges in Space Technology: Distributed Satellite Systems , 2001 .

[5]  A. T. Young,et al.  Acquisition of National Security Space Programs , 2003 .

[6]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Staged Deployment of Communications Satellite Constellations in Low Earth Orbit , 2004, J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun..

[7]  Shelford Bidwell,et al.  The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the world wars , 1986 .

[8]  Arthur K. Cebrowski,et al.  Operationally Responsive Space: A New Defense Business Model , 2005, The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters.

[9]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  On-Orbit Servicing: A New Value Proposition for Satellite Design and Operation , 2007 .

[10]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Interaction of policy choices and technical requirements for a space transportation infrastructure , 2003 .

[11]  Catharine Linet,et al.  SEMI-AUTONOMOUS INSPECTION WITH A NEUTRAL BUOYANCY , 2006 .

[12]  Ella M. Atkins,et al.  Semi-Autonomous Inspection with a Neutral Buoyancy Free-Flyer , 2006 .

[13]  Andrew Long,et al.  System Lifecycle Cost Under Uncertainty as a Design Metric Encompassing the Value of Architectural Flexibility , 2007 .

[14]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Methodology for Assessing Survivability Tradeoffs in the Preliminary Design Process , 2000 .

[15]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[16]  H. Sapolsky.  The Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government , 1972 .

[17]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Measuring the Value of Flexibility in Space Systems: A Six‐Element Framework , 2007, Syst. Eng..

[18]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[19]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  A Framework for Incorporating "ilities" in Tradespace Studies , 2007 .

[20]  Roberta Ewart,et al.  Operationally Responsive Space Specifications and Standards: An Approach to Converging with the Community , 2007 .

[21]  Hiraku Sakamoto,et al.  Implementation of Satellite Formation Flight Algorithms Using SPHERES Aboard the International Space Station , 2007 .

[22]  Gregory F. Dubos,et al.  Responsive Space: Concept Analysis, Critical Review, and Theoretical Framework , 2007 .

[23]  Owen Brown,et al.  Application of Value-Centric Design to Space Architectures: The Case of Fractionated Spacecraft* , 2008 .

[24]  C Cramer,et al.  Born again. , 1997, Journal of emergency nursing: JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association.

[25]  chearings.  Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, First Session, March 28, 2001 , 2002 .

[26]  Hugh McManus,et al.  A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems , 2006, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[27]  Gregory T Mark,et al.  Incorporating flexibility into system design : a novel framework and illustrated developments , 2005 .

[28]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  1.5.4 Time‐Expanded Decision Networks: A Framework for Designing Evolvable Complex Systems , 2007 .

[29]  Elting E. Morison,et al.  Gunfire at Sea : A Case Study of Innovation , 2002 .

[30]  T. P. Garrison,et al.  Systems Engineering Trades for the IRIDIUM Constellation , 1997 .

[31]  R. Lock‐Pullan.  US Intervention Policy and Army Innovation: From Vietnam to Iraq , 2004 .

[32]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Time‐expanded decision networks: A framework for designing evolvable complex systems , 2007, Syst. Eng..

[33]  Armin P. Schulz,et al.  Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle , 2005, Syst. Eng..