A Framework for Incorporating "ilities" in Tradespace Studies

Non-traditional design criteria such as flexibility, robustness, survivability and others (collectively referred to as the “ilities”) are increasingly recognized as critical system properties for the success of aerospace programs. While most decision makers would agree that the ilities are important system properties, they are neither well-defined nor easily evaluated in isolation. While some evaluation methodologies do exist (e.g., real options for flexibility), there is a need for a holistic framework for describing systems with these properties. This paper will explore the use of these “ilities” properties as selection criteria in tradespace studies. A framework is described that can be used to incorporate ilities into conceptual design and tradespace studies in a systematic way. The framework is based on describing ilities in terms of changes in three dimensions: changes in the context, changes in the needs, and changes in the systems itself. The ilities are then interpreted as methods of navigating changes in this space. Quantitative analysis can be accomplished through Epoch/Era Analysis linking multiple discrete tradespace studies into a coherent timeline. An extended example is presented to demonstrate an analysis and visualization of the survivability of a space tug system to LEO orbital debris over a ten year lifetime. The results indicate that passive shielding for satellites in LEO provides only marginal benefit, at best, given the debris distribution. The smaller satellite designs in the tradespace display an unfavorable tradeoff of cost versus survivability. The example case study is a simple application of the framework, and points out the potential challenges of displaying multidimensional, non-aggregate data in “ilities” dynamic tradespace studies. The framework and case study suggest that using Epoch/Era Analysis, “ilities” will emerge as properties describing how systems change across epochs, and can be prescribed as visual and quantitative strategies that can be traded in terms of benefit and cost over time.

[1]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration as Front End for Effective Space System Design , 2004 .

[2]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Space systems flexibility provided by on-orbit servicing. II , 2001 .

[3]  Joseph H. Saleh,et al.  Space Systems Flexibility Provided by On-Orbit Servicing: Part 2 , 2002 .

[4]  John L. Remo,et al.  Orbital Debris Effects from Space-Based Ballistic Missile Interception , 2005 .

[5]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  9.4.3 Defining System Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility, Adaptability, Scalability, and Robustness for Maintaining System Lifecycle Value , 2007 .

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

[7]  D.H. Rhodes,et al.  Design Principles for Survivable System Architecture , 2007, 2007 1st Annual IEEE Systems Conference.

[8]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  New Methods for Rapid Architecture Selection and Conceptual Design , 2004 .

[9]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  11.1.1 Using Natural Value-Centric Time Scales for Conceptualizing System Timelines through Epoch-Era Analysis , 2008 .

[10]  Matthew G. Richards,et al.  Assessing the challenges to a geosynchronous space tug system , 2005, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[11]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Assessing Changeability in Aerospace Systems Architecting and Design Using Dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration , 2006 .

[12]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Defining Survivability for Engineering Systems , 2007 .

[13]  Robert E. Ball,et al.  The fundamentals of aircraft combat survivability analysis and design , 1985 .

[14]  李幼升,et al.  Ph , 1989 .

[15]  Edmond Murad,et al.  Hazards of Hypervelocity Impacts on Spacecraft , 2002 .

[16]  Gautam D. Badhwar,et al.  Determination of the area and mass distribution of orbital debris fragments , 1989 .

[17]  Hugh McManus,et al.  UNDERSTANDING THE ORBITAL TRANSFER VEHICLE TRADE SPACE , 2003 .

[18]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration in Space System Design , 2002 .

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