31

3. Technical Plan

3.1 Payload Integration Plan

3.1.1 Payload RequirementsACES includes four systems that must be electrically andmechanically integrated: 1) The ALTUS UAV platform,2) the electrodynamics sensor suite, 3) the Flight Pay-load Data System (FPDS), and 4) the Payload GroundSystem (PGS). Table 2.2, provided previously, describeseach element of the ACES payload, including the FPDS.Also listed is the thermal and pressure environmentrequired for the various payload components. Note thatthe sensors have heritage derived from previous rocketor aircraft use, and thus are very reliable. Note also thatthe total mass of the payload is 183 lb, payload power is378 W, and payload volume is 6.8 cu ft. Since, the ALTUSaircraft can accommodate payloads up to 330 lb, 800 Wand 18.6 cu ft, the ACES payload fits well within air-craft specifications. This was verified in late Septem-ber 2000 when the ACES payload was successfullyintegrated and flown on ALTUS over the desert air spacenear El Mirage, CA. Figure 3.1 shows the ALTUS withthe ACES payload onboard during the test flights inSeptember. During flights, the ALTUS and its payloadare controlled from the Ground Control Station (GCS)shown in Figure 3.2.

3.1.2 Issues and Concernsof the Instrument Teamand UAV Provider

3.1.2.1 Instrument TeamThe instrument team has no payload weight and balance,thermal and electrical, or avionics issues/concerns. Sinceessentially the ACES payload has already been success-fully integrated and flown onboard the ALTUS there areno significant concerns that have not been addressed.

3.1.2.2 UAV ProviderGA–ASI also has no payload weight and balance, ther-mal and electrical, or avionics issues/concerns withACES. However there are three mission-specific modi-fications or adaptations of the ALTUS UAV systemrequired to support ACES. These are considered low risk,being characteristic of typical GA–ASI efforts incustomizing system facets in previous science missions.

First, the ACES mission requirements require elevatedaltitude close to the Ground Control Station (GCS) site.This demands link geometry that is on the edge ofantenna lobe performance regarding the vehicle-mounted,azimuth steered horn antenna. Installation of a widerbeam width unit will be implemented without impact tothe antenna servomount, its drive, and pointing accuracy.This is regarded as a component change with negligiblesystem risk since, (a) The resultant Line-of-Sight (LOS)range will be in excess of the science mission range,(b) security of the data link system is buffered by theupper and lower Omni antennas (c) the lost link functioncan fly the vehicle to be “captured” by the Omni anten-nas and ensure recovery, and (d) El Mirage check flightswill confirm system performance prior to any missionflights. The changes described in this paragraph for theLOS antenna-related aspects are typical customizing

Figure 3.1.—ALTUS takes off with the ACES payloadduring a test flight at the GA–ASIEl Mirage flight test facility onSeptember 28, 2000.

Figure 3.2.—Pilot (left) and co-pilot control the ALTUSduring the September 28, 2000 test flight.

32

efforts common to such science missions and are notconsidered an avionics issue.

Second, a small CCD daylight camera will be mounted onan azimuth-steered servomount to provide an in-aircraftmeans for identifying cloud conditions to be avoided. Thiswill be commanded through the GCS by the UAV opera-tor and use a GA–ASI flight-proven servomechanism. Can-didate systems are those used for the air vehicle steereddirectional antenna or linear servoactuators. These havebeen operational and are capable of temperature altitudesrequired by the mission.

Finally, it is desired that weather information (radar,cloud, lightning, electric fields, etc) be available in realtime to the ALTUS pilot to further maintain the UAVsystem integrity and safety when flying in the vicinity ofthunderstorms. The science team will provide thissystem using previously developed capabilities.

3.1.3 Instrument Modifications andImpact on Payload Integration

The instrument team does plan to modify the payload byadding a fifth field mill and placing the search coil on anose boom. The first modification will improve the mea-surement of the full-vector electric field while the sec-ond change will reduce even further the effects of RadioFrequency Interference (RFI) generated by the aircraftitself. Some modification of the fairing is required toaccommodate the additional field mill, and addedmechanical design is required to accommodate a noseboom-mounted search coil. GA–ASI has indicated thatsuch modifications are minor. GA–ASI also indicatedthat a boom-mounted search coil can be easily accom-modated without a risk to safety. The field mill modi-fication to the payload is easily accommodated giventhe wide payload weight, power, and volume marginthat presently exist.

3.1.4 Onboard CommunicationThere are no onboard communications issues/concerns.All onboard communications between the ACES payloadand the ALTUS UAV are handled through a GA–ASIprovided and flight-proven payload digital serial inter-face, defined and described in the ALTUS Aerial VehiclePayload Integration Manual document (ASI–00112).Functional operation of the ACES onboard communica-tions was verified during the successful SBIR flightprogram in September 2000.

3.1.5 Interface ControlDocument Development

ACES Interface Control Documents (ICDs) will bedeveloped for the ACES to UAV, FPDS to ACES sensor,and FPDS to PGS interfaces. These interfaces have beensuccessfully integrated and documented under theprevious NASA Phase II SBIR.

The UAV requirements are derived from the ALTUSAerial Vehicle Payload Integration Manual (GA–ASIdocument ASI–00112) which delineates mechanical,electrical, and communication interface details to enableincorporation and integration of the science mission pay-load. This interface has been used on previous sciencemission deployments and payload test flights from theGA–ASI El Mirage, CA flight test center. As such, thisdocument reflects a mature and proven payload capabil-ity that can be used within the ICD structure for the overallscience payload without issue or concern.

Under the previous SBIR, detailed electrical andmechanical interfaces between the sensors and the FPDSand the FPDS and ALTUS were described in the FlightPayload Data System Manual (PDS 9902 Rev. 1.4,2/21/99). The Flight Payload Data System(PDS)/GroundSystem (PGS) Manual (Ver. 9.0, 3/11/2000) describesFPDS and its interface with the PGS. These documentswill serve as a proven starting point for the developmentof the ACES ICDs.

GA–ASI also maintains a detail PRO–E™ mechanicalCAD database for the ALTUS payload bay. This will bemodified and made payload specific by including detailsfor windows, ports, and sampling probe attachments.GA–ASI will support ICD development by maintainingthese documents in accordance with its ISO 9001certified practices.

3.1.6 Payload Certification and TestFlights

At the GA–ASI El Mirage flight test facility payload cer-tification is a process of physically and functionallyintegrating the science mission instrument suite onto theALTUS aircraft. Payload checkout includes ensuringaircraft system end-to-end checks remain unaffected bythe integration. These tests use the GCS along withengine ground running and taxi tests. Since the basicpayload has already been integrated and flown onALTUS at the GA–ASI El Mirage flight test facility, itis anticipated that the ACES certification and test flightactivities will benefit from that earlier effort.

33

Payload integration into the overall UAV system is moni-tored and supported by GA–ASI flight operations person-nel. These will include pilots, mechanical and avionicstechnicians, and flight operations support individuals thatwill also be part of the deployment team. When integrationis complete and the total UAV/payload system is function-ally checked out, local flight tests up to 12,500 feet canproceed. This will occur after a GA–ASI Flight Crew Briefand final approval by the GA–ASI El Mirage Flight Facil-ity Director. For this, the UAV system and payload areassessed for flight readiness along with the flight plan.Approval for flight rests with the Flight Facility Directorwith recommendations from GA–ASI personnel includingpilots, ground crew, and operations support personnel.

3.1.7 Payload Integration ScheduleBased on our experience with the previous ALTUS inte-gration and the maturity of the ACES payload, weanticipate that the integration can be easily accomplishedin 2 weeks. However, adequate contingency is built intoour schedule to allow for unanticipated problems witheither the payload or the aircraft.

3.2 Deployment Plan

3.2.1 Facility NeedsThe ALTUS UAV operations need general aviation-typefacilities. The deployment sites will provide hangar spaceto park aircraft, power (120 VAC and 220 VAC), com-pressed air, air-conditioned office space and furniture,communications (phone, fax, high-speed internet), load-ing and unloading facilities (e.g., 2,500 lb forklift), andaccess to a 3,000-foot runway. A variety of services arealso required and will be provided at the deployment siteincluding range support, fuel services (e.g., handling andstorage), airfield services (e.g., tower support, AGE sup-port), emergency response, and frequency coordination.All these requirements are met at PAFB.

The GCS must be no more than 250 feet from the GroundData Terminal (GDT). The GDT must have LOS of thetaxiways and runways. The GDT can be elevated, and asan option, be situated on top of the GCS trailer.Figure 3.3 shows a GCS trailer at the El Mirage flighttest center with the GDT mounted on top. The GCS canbe remote from the aircraft hangar. However, there mustbe a capability to move the aircraft (tow or taxi) from thehangar to a locality near the GCS where a direct-connectline between the ALTUS and the GCS can be established.This requires a ramp area with the GCS within 150 feetof the aircraft. From this position, engine run up andsystems checkout (using the direct-connect) will be

performed. The aircraft must be capable of taxi out forflight from this location. All these requirements are metat PAFB.

3.2.2 ExpendablesThe expendables include 100 octane low-lead aviationgas (available at PAFB), generator diesel fuel, engineoil and lubricants, antifreeze, fuel and oil filters, andwiping rags.

3.2.3 Scope of DeploymentGA–ASI and the PI conducted an initial site survey ofKSC and PAFB on November 16, 2000. The purpose ofthis visit was to narrow in on a proposed mission base.The KSC skid strip, Shuttle landing facility (SLF) andPAFB were visited. While missions could be conductedout of either the KSC skid strip or the NASA aviationhangar at PAFB, the PAFB site is favored due to betteraccess to facilities and being a superior location relativeto the mission target area (i.e., the restricted KSC air-space). A follow-up Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM)was held on Feb. 1, 2001 finalizing the selection of PAFBas the deployment base of operations.

Preliminary discussions have already been undertakenwith KSC range control and Air Traffic Control (ATC)at the Miami Center. Site meetings were held withrange and airspace management personnel to discuss(and finalize, when possible) details about the deploy-ment and airspace management plans pertaining to anyspecial requirements and flying areas or procedures.Also, possible locations have been identified for GCSplacement at PAFB and KSC. A detailed physical sur-vey to determine the best location of the GCS andassociated GDT to maintain uninterrupted LOS withthe vehicle at all times in order to maintain continu-ous C-band LOS data-link coverage will be conductedafter ACES is selected.

Figure 3.3.—GCS with top-mounted GDT at the El Mirage, CA flight test center.

34

3.2.4 ReviewsGA–ASI has a substantial history of working with andthrough the NASA approval process for the ALTUS IIfirst flight, range operations, and science deployments.Normally, these three events require the organization anddelivery of technical, operational, and safety informa-tion that culminates in the completion of three safetyreviews: Airworthiness Flight Safety Review Board(AFSRB), Flight Readiness Review (FRR), and Deploy-ment Readiness Review (DRR), respectively. In this pro-posal DRR is considered the same as OperationalReadiness Review (ORR).

The Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) FRR forALTUS II was conducted and completed on June 16, 1998with approval for First Flight. The flight was success-fully conducted on June 29, 1998. The ALTUS II systemwas ASFRB approved by the DFRC on July 7, 1998 forflights on the Edwards AFB range and again onSeptember 9, 1998 for high-altitude range flights. OnApril 12, 1999, the UAV system was ORR approved byDFRC for the Kauai Pacific Missile Range Facility(PMRF) Science Mission (DOE/ARM–UAV) and flownat PMRF (April 18–May 14, 1999). Copies of thosepresentations are available.

Based on the approved results of these prior reviews, theexcellent ALTUS II operational and flight safety record,and Defense Department approval of GA–ASI flightoperations procedures, AFSRB and DRR approvals bythe respective NASA Center Flight Operations Office areexpected to be routine processes.

The following additional planning documentation willbe available for review and approval during the DRRprocess: Flight and Airspace Management Plan; RangeSafety Plan; Frequency Coordination Plan; hazard analy-sis; HAZMAT provisions and requirements; Local BaseClearance and Access; Logistics Plan; EmergencyResponse Plan.

3.2.5 Deployment ScheduleOne week is allowed in the schedule for completion ofthe packup activity after the last checkout flight atEl Mirage, CA. Likewise, one week is scheduled for theunpack at the PAFB deployment site between arrival andthe first functional check flight. Access to the aircraft forpayload instrument reinstallation should be available onthe second day after arrival at PAFB.

Pilots have a 12-hour day restriction when flying is sched-uled. There is no restriction on night or weekend flights

except those imposed by the range controller or PI team.The “fatigue factor” of the flight operations/maintenancecrew is monitored by the onsite GA–ASI Project Man-ager (PM). Depending on the tempo, problems encoun-tered, etc., a stand down day may be recommended. Thiswill be discussed with the science mission PI and amutual solution determined. However, pilot restrictionsare not expected to occur due to the fact that missionduration is expected to be approximately 8 hours or less.

There are no restrictions for back-to-back flights exceptthe considerations for the 12-hour pilot /crew rest, equip-ment availability, range availability, deployment siteweather, and other factors. Generally, flights at high alti-tude require significant preparation prior to flight andback-to-back flights are not routine operations. Thedecision on back-to-back flights must be based on con-ditions experienced at the deployment site and made bythe PI and GA–ASI team leaders.

3.3 Flight Plan

3.3.1 Mission Flight ConceptThe mission flight concept is to conduct flight opera-tions out of PAFB. Missions will be flown over therestricted and warning areas to the north and east ofPAFB. Figure 3.4 is an aviation map that depicts the areaproposed for ACES. The mission concept is to monitorthunderstorm development over the mainland of Floridaand adjacent waters from a position on the KSC range.ALTUS will transition from PAFB under Miami Center’scontrol, climb to mission altitude, and loiter in positionwaiting for isolated thunder cells to impact the KSCrestricted area. Flights will not be conducted over thepopulated areas of the Florida mainland. Flights opera-tions and profiles will be conducted at a safe standoffdistance to the side or above the thunderstorms as thestorms develop within or transit the range. Missions areexpected to start in late morning or early afternoon,depending on weather development, and last approximately5–8 hours before return-to-base (RTB).

The decision to abort a flight in process or cancel a sched-uled flight for weather rests with the Pilot-in-Command(PIC). Although the flight plan is the beginning point forflight planning, weather impacts safety of flight. The PICis the final authority on these and all flight matters. How-ever, the PIC will receive considerable support andinformation from the flight director and science team.The PIC will also be guided by data, standard aviationweather services, ALTUS onboard instruments, and theentire array of ground-based instruments.

35

Figure 3.3.—Aeronautical chart showing the restricted and warning areas near KSC and PAFB(Jacksonville Sectional Aeronautical Chart, 64th Edition, September 9, 1999).

36

3.3.2 Mission FlightLocation/Profile/Performance

ALTUS flights will be conducted primarily over thecoastal waters and KSC, staying within the restricted andwarning areas to the north and east of PAFB. ALTUSwill begin flights during the early development of thesecells and fly north and south along the coastal waters atmission altitude taking measurements of the cell as itapproaches the KSC restricted area. Safe standoff mar-gins will be adhered to during the flights. Once the stormimpacts the KSC range, ALTUS will continue to profilethe storm in the following ways: Staying ahead of thestorm (ALTUS is out to sea), staying south of the storm(between the storm and PAFB), flying over the storm, orflying behind the storm (ALTUS is between the coastand the storm which has moved out to sea).

3.3.2.1 Avoidance of LightningAreas of weather representing potential danger to the air-craft will be avoided by monitoring onboard and ground-based systems that measure electric fields and lightningin the vicinity of the thunderstorm. Electric field obser-vations will be downlinked real time to the GCS forinformation necessary to avoid areas of high electric fieldwhich might induce a lightning strike to the aircraft. Thefive electric field mills installed on the aircraft will pro-vide this measurement. An electric field of 25 kV/m hasbeen set as the safe standoff distance for threat of light-ning strike. This number has been determined from aLangley Research Center (LRC) Airborne Field Mill(ABFM) program where a LRC Learjet 28/29 was usedto conduct over 1,000 penetrations of thunderstorms.During these missions, the Learjet experienced100 kV/m electric fields without lightning strike. In fact,it was not until levels were in excess of 150 kV/m thatthe Learjet encountered an actual strike. Of the1,000 missions flown, the Learjet only drew one strikeand this was directly inside the cloud. Therefore, the25 kV/m level is considered a conservative number.

3.3.2.2 Avoidance of Turbulence(Standoff Distance)

The ALTUS will also maintain a standoff distance of5 km (~3 n mi) from any storm cell. From past missionsexperience in the ABFM programs, it was determinedthat turbulence and lightning were not encountered untilwithin the cloud. Therefore, we believe the 5 km stand-off distance is also conservative. Likewise experience inthe ABFM program has provided the insight that turbu-lence above the cells does not occur unless in direct con-tact with the cloud top. Due to uncertainty of developmentrates, we have set the margin to be 5,000–10,000-feetabove the tops to allow for cloud growth. These distances

may be modified as experience is gained during the ACESflight program.

These standoff distances discussed in this section willnot adversely impact the quality of science observationsobtained. The ACES sensors have high-sensitivitydesigned to remotely observe and infer the electricalstructure of thunderstorms from this range.

3.3.2.3 PerformanceThe maximum altitude expected for this series of mis-sions is 55,000 feet. ALTUS has experience flyingroutinely at this altitude (50–55 kft). Mission pro-files are expected to typically remain between 40,000to 50,000 feet. Typical climb rates for ALTUS areapproximately 1,000 ft/min at sea level, dropping to about100 ft/min at 55 kft. These climb rates are suitable forconducting the types of storm missions proposed.Descent rates for ALTUS are between 100 ft/min and1,000 ft/min. Descent rates are adequate to fly these mis-sions. Maximum descent rate will be a consideration inthe RTB decision process. The takeoff distances, ground-rolls, and cross-wind components capability are allwithin specification needed to conduct operations atPAFB or KSC.

ALTUS has an on station endurance in excess of8 hours for all missions planned. Missions are to beconducted during daylight hours from early to lateafternoon. Typical missions are expected to last in the5–8 hour time frame. Generally 1 hour is allocated forclimb and positioning, 3–6 hours for profiling and1 hour for descent and landing. Missions will beplanned so that adequate fuel reserves are on-boardfor emergency and contingencies. A minimum 1-hourreserve fuel will be planned.

3.3.3 Flight Planning CriteriaThis section defines the criteria and process for flightplanning that is conducted just prior to a flight. This sec-tion addresses the planned events to be executed oncethe science team has determined their goals and objec-tives for the day’s flight. Essentially, the GA–ASI flightcrew executes those items specified in this section withheavy involvement from the science team.

3.3.3.1 Mission PlanningThe GA–ASI flight crew is responsible for the flight plan-ning activities on every deployment. The GA–ASI flightcrew are qualified per the minimum training, certifica-tion, and currency requirements as mandated in theGA–ASI Flight Procedures Manual (GA–ASI documentASI–00009). GA–ASI pilots draw on their formal

37

aviation piloting training, manned aircraft experience, UAVtraining, UAV experience, and company procedures tosuccessfully complete the flight planning for each flight.

The GA–ASI system of UAV pilot certification has beenin place at GA–ASI since the company’s founding andhas evolved with the many lessons learned over the years.The GA–ASI’s system of UAV pilot certification isunmatched in the UAV industry, has developed theindustry’s best UAV pilots, and is implemented andmaintained at GA–ASI without compromise.

3.3.3.2 Flight Planning ProcessThe flight planning process summarized below is devel-oped prior to the flight with inputs from the PI, projectengineer, and flight service station. The flight planningprocess culminates in the issuance of the flight card.

Mission Profile. The first step in the flight planning pro-cess is to formalize the goals, objectives, and conditionsthat will meet the PI’s success criteria. This informationis conveyed at the science team meeting, usually con-ducted the day before the flight and then again at theGA–ASI Crew Brief (day of flight). This information isusually handed down in the form of weather forecasts,mission planning profiles, and verbal communication ofcontingencies. This information forms the basis for thedetailed flight plan that the GA–ASI flight crew conductsin the next step. If conditions are difficult to predict,several of these plans may be conveyed in order toaccumulate contingency plans.

Weather Planning. Per FAR 91 requirements, the pilotavails himself of all current weather information relatedto his route of flight. The surface analysis, forecasts, prog-nostic charts, and winds aloft data are checked. Thisinformation is used to form the basis of the aircraft per-formance planning and enters into the pilot’s decisionprocess as to whether to conduct the mission. Contin-gency planning is also considered when the weather datais analyzed.

NOTAMS. Per FAR 91, all Notices-to-Airmen(NOTAMs) affecting the intended flight are checked tosee their impact (if any) on the mission. Action is takenas appropriate.

Aircraft Performance Planning. Mission-specific air-craft performance calculations are made including fuelplanning, route and altitude planning, takeoff and land-ing distances, cross-wind component calculations, andtime to climb and descend. Aircraft performance andflight profiles form the basis for the day of flightprogramming, flight plan waypoints, and the lost-linkmission waypoints.

Communications. Aircraft VHF communication fre-quencies for ATIS, ground control, departure control,tower, range, ATC, and approach control are reviewedand logged for future reference on the flight card. Thecontrol link frequencies authorized by the frequencymanager (requested by GA–ASI) are also listed.

Emergency/Contingency Planning. During the flightplanning process, possible emergency planning is con-ducted for many different aspects of the mission. A spe-cific scenario might be the possibility of an unpredictedweather system, engine out, or other system failures maybe discussed and planned for as appropriate for thespecific mission. Additionally, contingency plans con-sisting of alternative mission profiles are developedand made available in case a predicted weather pat-tern fails to materialize. The PI directs execution of acontingency mission.

3.3.4 Go-No Go CriteriaThe initial Go-No Go decision is made with respect tothe projected environmental considerations supportingthe requirements of the scientific mission. If conditionspresent an opportunity for the mission to be of value thenthe first Go-No Go criteria is Go. The remaining Go-NoGo decisions should be identified in the flight brief.Usually they are in phase with the flight preparation pro-cess and involve the completion of one or more check-lists before the criteria can be reported as Go. The ideaof the Go-No Go decision path is to build in a gate ateach critical step in the experiment to allow for a meet-ing of the minds of the operational team that it is appro-priate, in all respects, to proceed with the mission. Bypublishing this criteria well in advance, the entire teamcan identify what the major steps are that need to be com-pleted in order to proceed on the mission. Below is anoutline of the steps in this process, which are tuned, tosome extent, for each flight:• Weather above minimums for launch and at time

of recovery• NOTAMs and local traffic not in conflict with

mission• Aircraft conditions and material discrepancies

acceptable• Payload performance checks satisfactory, ground-

based support equipment functional• Chase aircraft (if required) in position• Clearance from local ATC received• Ground functional checks complete• Airborne functional checks of aircraft and payload

complete• Environmental conditions consistent with mission

objectives.

38

This process in no way relieves anyone of the responsi-bility of alerting the operational team of changes in sta-tus of equipment, personnel, or environmental conditionswhich might affect the success and safety of the mission.On the contrary, identification of the critical elements inthe process are hoped to heighten awareness in all per-sonnel to those elements which must be continuouslymonitored in order to ensure the highest possibility ofmission success with the lowest associated probabilityof hazard to personnel.

3.3.5 Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe PI will be the central control for conduct of the mis-sion. The PI will accept inputs from all concerned whenformulating the mission plan. The GA–ASI team leaderwill be the main point of contact with the PI for missionplanning, assisted principally by the PIC.

Once the planning phase is complete and flight opera-tions commence, the PI assumes the responsibility forconduct of the experiment and execution of the missionplan. He begins the process by accepting the Go criteriafor the mission. Subsequently all responsible personnel,either from the payload side or from GA–ASI, willreport that the appropriate checklist is complete and thatthey are go for the next phase. The PI, assisted by theGA–ASI team, will coordinate production of the appro-priate checklists and maintain the master checklist. Thepilot will be personally responsible for safety of flightfrom taxi to final landing. The GA–ASI team has collec-tive responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight andwill support the pilot in preparation for and in executionof the flight plan. The GA–ASI mechanics are respon-sible for the material condition of the aircraft and safetyof ground operations including maintenance of theaircraft and the payload.

3.4 Non-NASA AircraftSafety Plan

3.4.1 NASA Safety Review Processfor UAV

The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) aviation safetyofficer for the ACES project will define the NASA safetyreviews for the UAV. The MSFC aviation safety officeris Larry Fine. Three reviews are currently identified tooccur during the project. The first safety review will bethe Airworthiness Flight Safety Review (AFSR) to bedone at MSFC during the design phase of the ACESproject. GA–ASI will present to the AFSRB the capa-bilities of the UAV with the payload and safety issues.Information listed in sections 3.4.2–3.4.9 will be

presented to the AFSRB in greater detail. The secondsafety review, the FRR, will occur prior to the certifica-tion flight at GA–ASI flight range at El Mirage. Infor-mation from the integration of the payload to the aircraftwill be presented to the MSFC aviation safety officer.All safety issues from the first review will be presentedand closed prior to the certification flight. The third safetyreview will be at the PAFB prior to the first flight of thecampaign. This safety review will be held in conjunctionwith the DRR. The issues that will be addressed are allsafety issues related to the PAFB (frequency, KSC flightrange, etc.) as well as the aircraft safety issues, flightplan, and ground operations. The PAFB safety officerwill chair the safety review at PAFB. For the second cam-paign, only a DRR to address safety issues will berequired. Additional safety reviews (e.g., FRR) may beconsidered if there are changes to the payload or aircraft.

3.4.2 Flight Parametersof the ACES Program

The flight operations requirements proposed for ACESfall within the parameters of the ALTUS aircraft.Indeed, safety has been the prime consideration in estab-lishing standoff distances, lightning avoidance rules,mission procedures, and property/population avoidance(i.e., location of flights within KSC range airspace).

3.4.3 Airworthiness of AircraftALTUS is the most proven, tested, and confirmed high-altitude UAV system in existence. As discussed in detailin Section 3.2.4, the ALTUS II aircraft has passed sev-eral AFSRBs, FRRs, and DRRs. In addition, ALTUS I(the identical aircraft system with the exception of thepropulsion system.) passed AFSRB for flights at EdwardsAFB and Ponca City, OK. These prior approvals are thebasis for the responsible NASA Center Flight OperationsOffice AFSRB process. Minor fine tuning of the ALTUSII system can be accommodated to meet individual rangedifferences. GA–ASI will support the NASA AFSRB asrequired by the PI team.

Presently there are no Federal guidelines for the designand certification of UAVs nor has the FAA certified theALTUS II system, or any other UAV system, under Fed-eral Aviation Regulations. However, GA–ASI establishedcompany guidelines and used parts of FAR–23, the FAAstandards for general aviation and commuter aircraft thatenhanced the design, manufacturing, and performanceaspects of the aircraft. Numerous iterations of R&D anddelivery testing, using approved acceptance test proce-dures, for 80 aircraft have verified the airworthiness ofthe GA–ASI product design.

39

As of October, 2000 the ALTUS II UAV system has flown70 flights/209 flight hours with no incidents. With theexception of the optimized propulsion system, all theALTUS subsystems are the same systems that fly on thePredator system. The Predator system is now proven withover 22,000 hours to date.

3.4.4 Capability of Aircraft to Meetthe ACES Flight Requirements

The ALTUS capabilities will not only meet the ACESscience requirements, its capabilities of high altitude,coupled with low flight speed and long duration make itideally and, in fact, uniquely suited for achieving the pro-posed science objectives requiring the observation of athunderstorm throughout its life cycle.

3.4.5 Background and Experienceof Operators

GA–ASI assigns only its most experienced pilots to flythe ALTUS II system. Currently, Tim Just (GA–ASI chiefpilot), Jason McDermott (flew NASA PMRF mission inJuly 1999), and Steve De La Cruz are authorized to flyas PIC. All personnel assigned to fly UAVs are FAA ratedand instrument qualified. Assigned copilots are also fullyqualified in the UAV system and function as backup tothe PIC to assist on long-duration missions and possibleemergency situations.

3.4.6 Demands Placed on UAVService Provider

There is no requirement or situation envisioned in sup-porting ACES that would place undue demands onGA–ASI or expose them to risks beyond their capacityto manage. GA–ASI deploys and supports UAV systemoperations on a worldwide basis, 24 hours per day,365 days per year. They are experts in the flying of UAVsin combat, test and engineering (T&E), and science mis-sions. GA–ASI has over 26,000 hours of UAV flightexperience and conducts flight operations with theexpectation that all customer flight objectives will/canbe met. GA–ASI does not fly unless its personnel, UAVsystems, and the customer payloads/data collection sys-tems are ready. When an unplanned event occurs(e.g., unplanned weather or system malfunction), thesafety of the aircraft and people/facilities in the rangearea (if applicable) are the primary concern.

3.4.7 System HazardsThe system hazards on the ALTUS system are well rec-ognized and documented. Control measures have beendeveloped and incorporated as standardized proceduresin checklists and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).

Emergency procedures are routinely practiced bypilots and checked during annual check rides. TheALTUS system (ALTUS I & II) has been on numerousscientific deployments and has recorded 272 flight hourswithout incident.

Ground hazard mitigation at the operating site primarilyinvolves the safe handling of fuels and lubricants andthe specialized handling of the parachute pyrotechnicrocket. Specialized equipment is available (fueler/defueler, oil drains, and 50-gal oil barrel) for the fueland lubricants handling. The install/deinstall procedurefor the parachute rocket is covered by specific proce-dures and only performed by a trained technician. Flightline personnel must be constantly aware of operating pro-pellers in the vicinity of the UAV. GA–ASI SOP is thatonly a single individual is permitted in the vicinity of anaircraft with the engine running. All other personnel mustremain behind a specific barrier line.

Flight operation hazards are identified for all phases offlight—taxi, takeoff, flight, landing, and taxi to the han-gar area. Thirty-nine potential aircraft failure modes havebeen analyzed, assessed, categorized, and controls imple-mented to deal with the hazard event. These risks havebeen presented in previous NASA AFSRBs and willbe again presented for the NASA UAV ScienceDemonstration Project (SDP) AFSRB.

Collision avoidance risk of UAVs with other vehiclesis controlled in the NASA UAV SDP program by usingGovernment restricted areas, where possible, for allphases of the mission. All missions are planned above18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) in controlled orrestricted airspace (ACES missions will be conductedabove 40,000 feet). Since transit to/from the range areacannot be conducted in controlled airspace, a chaseplane will be provided. Details of controlling this riskwill be finalized in the Airspace Management Planthrough coordination with the Miami Center. Permis-sion to fly in the local area will be granted by the FAAissuance of a Certificate of Authorization.

3.4.8 Mission Vulnerability to IdentifiedSystem Hazards

GA–ASI’s experienced flight operation personnel con-sider the ACES mission vulnerability and risk low withrespect to the hazards identified in Section 3.4.7 above.GA–ASI personnel have successfully and safely man-aged all less than catastrophic category failures to date.There have been no catastrophic failures to date and thereis low risk of that occurrence.

40

Individual mission sortie failures due to GA–ASI aircraftsystems hazard-mode occurrence may be experienced.However, thus far, the mission success rate of every sci-ence mission GA–ASI UAV systems/flight operationspersonnel have participated is 100 percent.

3.4.9 SafeguardsThere are no known additional safeguards above andbeyond standard company procedures planned or antici-pated for the ACES mission. All of the known safeguards(e.g. proven software lost-link capability; proven, high-reliability parts, installation of approved FTS; systemmaturity, and Defense Logistics Agency approved flightoperations manual/procedures, etc.) to avoid or deal withsystem hazards are already built into GA–ASI’s hard-ware, software, flight operations manuals/procedures,training, checklists, and flight operations crew experi-ence. All of the experience and lessons learned from over15 combat deployments and 26,000 UAV flight hoursare focused on every deployment.

3.5 Airspace Management Plan

3.5.1 Flight Range SelectionThe KSC restricted airspace complex (KSC range) has beenselected as the operational location for the ACES mission.A preliminary site survey of the KSC range, skid strip, SLF,and PAFB along with airspace coordination has begun.Meetings have been conducted with operational and air-space authorities at KSC, PAFB and FAA ATC. As noted insection 3.2, PAFB has been selected as the deployment site.

A preliminary airspace analysis has been conducted forthe area. The KSC airspace is comprised of four restrictedareas that form an operational area that is ~45 n mi east towest and 50 n mi north to south (see Figure 3.4). Warningareas lie to the east and south of the restricted area complex.The restricted area is normally operational for Shuttlelaunches but can be activated for any other purposes thathave included UAV operations in the past. Table 3.1outlines KSC and vicinity restricted areas and warning

areas. The SLF lies within the R–2934 restricted areaand the skid strip lies within restricted area R–2932/2933(see Figure 3.4).

During ACES, the ALTUS will typically fly at40,000 feet and above. The planned ALTUS flight alti-tudes will serve to facilitate the Miami Center’s coordi-nation of commercial traffic, if needed, to transitionthrough the area since the commercial air carrier trafficin the Space Coast area is primarily concentrated in the29,000 feet to 37,000-feet altitudes.

3.5.2 Range/Air Space Approval PlanApproval of the planned flights takes two parallel paths.First, KSC Range Airspace Control must approve opera-tions within the range. Mr. Ron Wilson, an airspace man-ager for the KSC Range Airspace Control has been briefedand can see no reason why we cannot operate on the rangeprovided we do not interfere with Space Shuttle landingoperations, which have top priority at KSC. Additionally,the FAA requires a Certificate of Authorization securedfrom FAA Regional headquarters in Atlanta. Mr. HankTracey of the Miami Center has offered to put togetherthe necessary information for us to forward to Atlanta. Hehas successfully done this for other UAV operations in thepast. For flights that enter into class A airspace (above18,000 feet) an IFR flight plan will be filed.

3.5.3 Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe GA–ASI team is primarily responsible for thesafe operation of the aircraft. GA–ASI must exercisedue regard to FAA and range regulations and restric-tions imposed by company policy. They must alsooperate the aircraft so as to conform to time-criticaldirection of the relevant ATC controller. Once theseroles are established, limited negotiation room existswithin certain bounds with the final objective beingmission accomplishment with an acceptable level ofsafety. If the mission, as planned, can be completedwithout exception to the operating limitations imposedby ATC or the aircraft operating limitations there isno need for negotiations.

Table 3.1.—Restricted and warning areas in the vicinity of KSC, Florida.

Number Altitude Time of Use Controlling Agency

R–2932 SFC to 5,000 Continuous Miami CenterR–2933 5,000 to unlimited Intermittent by NOTAM Miami CenterR–2934 Unlimited Intermittent by NOTAM (normally 24 hr in advance) Miami CenterR–2935 11,000 to unlimited Intermittent by NOTAM (normally 24 hr in advance) Miami CenterW–497A Unlimated By NOTAM Miami CenterW–497–B Unlimated By NOTAM Miami CenterW–158–A To FL 430 Continuous Jacksonville CenterFAR 91.143 SFC to unlimited Intermittent by NOTAM Miami Center

41

Inevitably though, the science mission cannot be flownexactly as planned. At this point both sides are requiredto prioritize their requirements and a process of negotia-tion and optimization begins. After each flight the PI willreview mission objectives and reprioritize them in orderto ensure as many objectives as possible are completed.The GA–ASI team will in turn review the operationalplan to ensure the proper level of safety is maintainedwhile completing as many operational objectives as pos-sible. The overriding responsibility of both groups is toconduct the operation with a minimum of risk to person-nel and property. The GA–ASI is never released from itsprimary responsibility of conducting flight operationswith an acceptable level of safety. The PI is neverreleased from being ultimately responsible for theconduct of the experiment.

3.5.4 ScheduleFormulation of the schedule evolves in harmony withthe roles and responsibilities. The PI originally writesthe schedule with mission accomplishment being the pri-mary driver. Flights can be conducted back-to-back forlimited periods (usually less than 1 week) depending onan onsite evaluation of the equipment/crew status.Initial screening by the GA–ASI team seeks only a cur-sory review to ensure that the schedule can be supported,give crew rest, and manning requirements. As the mis-sion proceeds, the schedule is reviewed daily as part ofthe mission planning process. Mission accomplishmentsto date, aircraft maintenance requirements, crew fatigue,and external factors (weather, range availability, etc.) areevaluated using the compromise philosophy discussedabove to continuously evolve a viable schedule.

42

43

4. Management Plan

Scientists from NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center(MSFC)/National Space Science and TechnologyCenter (NSSTC) and NASA/Goddard Space FlightCenter (GSFC) have formed a partnership for the pro-posed ACES scientific Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle (UAV)mission in response to NASA Research Announcement(NRA) NRA–00–OES–02. The ACES management planis built upon the organization shown in Figure 4.1. TheACES team is led by the Principal Investigator (PI),Dr. Richard Blakeslee, who has overall responsibility forall aspects of the ACES project.

Key elements of the management plan are as follows:• The Project Office (PO) at the NSSTC is directly coupled

to the team’s science and technical infrastructure and isresponsible to the PI in the management of the project.The core of the PO is composed of the ACES ProjectManager (PM), Mr. Tony Kim and the ACES Lead Sys-tems Engineer (LSE), Mr. Sonny Mitchell. The PO andPI are physically located in the same facility at theNSSTC to provide a cohesive team and for timely reso-lution of project issues. This integrated approach willfacilitate coordination and total project oversight, therebyensuring overall project success.

• Although NASA Procedures and Guidelines (NPG)7120.5A—NASA Program and Project ManagementProcesses and Requirements—is not a requirementfor the UAVSDP, the PM will manage the ACESproject using NPG 7120.5A as a guide tailored forthe size and complexity of the UAV project.

• A detailed work breakdown structure (WBS), byphases, has been developed in concert with all theteam member’s institutions and is the primary toolfor delineating details of the tasks.

• Adequate technical and programmatic reserves havebeen budgeted and baselined. Their allocation willbe centrally managed by the PM with concurrence ofthe PI.

• The PO has established a comprehensive review pro-cess, including reviews by an independent technicalteam, to access discipline practices and status theprojects progress to baseline plans and projectreadiness for deployment.

• Significant risk assessment and mitigation has beencompleted with the successful flight of the ACESinstruments on the ALTUS UAV under a previousSmall Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract.

• Finally, the management plan is built upon thededication and personal commitment of each team

Figure 4.1.—ACES organization chart.

Principal Investigator (PI)Dr. Richard Blakeslee

Education andPublic Outreach

Greg Cox

Science TeamMSFC & GSFC

Co-I’s

Payload SupportEquipment

IDEAHarvey Rice

ALTUS UAVGeneral Atomics

Scott Dann

Range SupportJPCSO/PAFB

Suzanne Cunningham

MSFC AircraftOperations Office

Larry Fine

Project ManagerTony Kim

ProcurementIssac Jones

Lead System Eng.Sonny Mitchell

Safety and MissionAssuranceJack Grass

Resources/ScheduleCharlotte Talley

Nate Porter

44

member, with the full support of their institution. Teamcharacteristics have been demonstrated throughout theACES implementation study phase and during thetechnology development and demonstration activitiespreceding this proposal.

MSFC is an ISO 9001 certified Center and the ACESproject will follow all applicable ISO procedures.

4.1 Management Organization

4.1.1 Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe ACES experiment involves four primary institutionswith critical roles in science, hardware, outreach, andpost-flight data analysis. These institutions are identifiedin Table 4.1. It should be noted that the ACES partnersbring considerable experience to the proposed effortincluding aircraft operations (GA–ASI), sensor develop-ment, and thunderstorm and other science investigationsusing aircraft, spacecraft, and rocket platforms. Webelieve this combined investigator experience makes usa very unique team in terms of developing and success-fully flying a payload that will meet the science and dem-onstration objectives of the UAV NRA. Our combinedexperience means that the team can deploy instrumentsthat possess substantial heritage, are of low risk, and canbe successfully delivered in the required time. The teamhas already had a very successful and quick integration

effort during the September, 2000 test flights asdescribed in Section 3.1. These test flights culminatedin the acquisition of valuable data characterizing theexcellent electrical properties of the ALTUS platformthus, demonstrating its suitability for the proposedACES science mission.

Table 4.2 details the roles and responsibilities of each ofthe scientific investigators and other key personnelinvolved in the project. The team consists of a number ofindividuals with extensive experience in their related dis-ciplines. Previous experience dictates that we define anoperations interface coordinator who acts as the liaisonbetween the scientists providing experimental sensors andGeneral Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA–ASI)providing the ALTUS platform and telemetry downlink.The PI will be the primary operations interface for theproject. We identify the LSE as the integration lead. Aswith our prior flight, we identify Mr. Harvey Rice ofIDEA, responsible for the Flight Payload Data System(FPDS). The FPDS is the electrical interface between thescientific sensor suite and the GA–ASI telemetry down-link system. The FPDS builder must be familiar withinterfaces on both sides of the data system. As the FPDSbuilder, Mr. Rice is already familiar with each of theindividual sensor’s interfaces, the ALTUS data linkinterface, and has already successfully integrated thissensor suite to the ALTUS via the central FPDS.

Institution RoleNASA/Marshall Space Flight Center PI institution including program management, lead institution for integration, and

responsibility for electric field sensors, optical pulse sensor, and conductivity probe. Lead center for postflight data analysis, archival, and distribution. Lead center for outreach efforts.

General Atomics Provider of ALTUS UAV and support personnel.NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Responsible for DC and AC magnetic field sensors and postflight data analysis. IDEA Responsible for the FPDS. Integration support.

Table 4.1.—Major institutions involved in ACES and their associated role.

Key Personnel ACES Roles and ResponsibilitiesDr. Richard J. Blakeslee (MSFC) PI, responsible for cost, schedule, and technical resources of ACES; oversees electrical

and optical sensors.Mr. Tony Kim (MSFC) Oversees system development, and holds cost and schedule reserves.Mr. Sonny Mitchell (MSFC) Establishes and maintains performance specifications, verification and test plans,

interface documents, and provides systems engineering oversight; integration lead.Dr. Douglas M. Mach (MSFC/UAH) Co–I, responsible for electrical and optical sensor calibration, integration, and analysis;

ACES team liaison with Educational Outreach.Mr. Harvey J. Rice (IDEA) Co–I, designer and builder of FPDS. Integration and operations support.Mr. Scott Dann (GA–ASI) Program manager of the ALTUS UAV.Mr. Ron Schramm (GA–ASI) Lead integration engineer for the ALTUS UAV.Dr. Richard A. Goldberg (GSFC) Co–I, aids in defining science goals and translation to payload requirements.Dr. William M. Farrell (GSFC) Co–I, leads design and builds of magnetic search coil. Dr. Michael D. Desch (GSFC) Co–I, oversees RFI reduction between payload/platform and oversees ground

software development. Mr. Jeffrey G. Houser (GSFC) Co–I, responsible for fabrication, calibration, and integration of search coil and

magnetometer; leads design of RFI reduction testing.Mr. Greg Cox (MSFC/UAH) Provides leadership and guidance in the development of the ACES lesson plan package.

Table 4.2.—ACES roles and responsibilites.

45

4.1.2 Changes in Personnel FromOriginal Proposal

Changes in key personnel from the original proposalinclude the designation of a PM and LSE. These changeswere brought about with the definition of the ACES PO.The PO will provide a formal management and systemsengineering approach with personnel experienced inmanaging flight systems. In October, 2000, Dr. Tomo-oUshio accepted a university appointment in Japan andwill no longer participate as a Co-I. Dr.’s. RichardBlakeslee and Doug Mach will assume responsibilityfor the electric field change sensor. Both have exten-sive field experience using and interpreting data fromthis instrument.

4.1.3 Organization StructureACES core management comes from within the MSFC/NSSTC. These functions include the PI, PM, and LSE. Acentralized management team, within the same institu-tion and location, will facilitate program oversight andmanagement of all program aspects including scientific,design, schedules, and resources on a continuous day-to-day basis which is of utmost importance in this scien-tific endeavor. The PM’s residence in the institutionproviding systems engineering and payload developmentand integration is key to providing effective managementto cost and schedule. The PM’s support staff is drawnfrom within MSFC directorates. The relationship betweenteam institutions and organizations is discussed inSection 4.1.4. The ACES organizational structure,shown in Figure 4.1, is based on the project WBS. Thisdefines the flowdown of roles and responsibilities to

all team member organizations. Table 4.3 shows thealignment of the top level WBS for the project with theresponsible organizations.

4.1.4 Relationships Between TeamInstitutions and Organizations

The relationship between ACES team institutions andorganizations is shown in Figure 4.2 while details of theroles and responsibilities of each team organization areprovided in Section 4.1.1. Program guidlines flow fromNASA/Ames Research Center (ARC) UAVSDP Officeto the ACES PO. Technical direction flows from theACES PO to all team organizations. The figure alsoshows the flow of contract funding. When direct con-tracting mechanisms are inappropriate, team institutionswill be linked by a Memoranda of Agreement (MOA).The ACES PM authorizes funding transfers to all teammember organizations.

4.1.5 Experience and Capabilitiesof Team Member Organizations

4.1.5.1 MSFC/NSSTCThe NSSTC is a research and education institution head-quartered in Huntsville, AL that provides an environmentfocused on selected key scientific disciplines. The NSSTCincludes the PI organization—the Global Hydrology andClimate Center (GHCC), and the ACES PO—the Sci-ence Systems Development Department (SSDD). Scien-tists at GHCC have extensive experience in and a provenhistory of successful scientific investigations. Recent fieldcampaigns include TEFLUN A, B (1998), CAMEX 3(1998), and TRMM/LBA (1999).

Figure 4.2.—Relationship between team institutions and organizations.

ACES Project OfficeMSFC/NSSTC

Altus UAVGeneral Atomics

GSFC Co-I’s IDEARange SupportJPCSO/PAFB

UAVSDP Program OfficeAmes Research Center

Program GuidelinesTechnical DirectionContract/FundingMOA/Funding

Table 4.3.—Work breakdown structure and institutionalresponsibility alignment.

WBS Element Description Lead ResponsibilityNumber 1.1 Project management MSFC/NSSTC1.2 ACES payload MSFC/NSSTC1.2.1 Sensor subsystems MSFC/NSSTC,

GSFC (joint)1.2.2 Data subsystems MSFC/NSSTC,

IDEA (joint)1.2.3 Payload support equipment IDEA1.3 ALTUS UAV GA–ASI1.4 Systems engineering, MSFC/NSSTC

integration, and tests1.5 Operations MSFC/NSSTC,

GA–ASI1.6 Science and data management MSFC/NSSTC,

GSFC (joint)1.7 Education and public outreach MSFC/NSSTC1.8 Safety and mission assurance MSFC S&MA Office

46

The SSDD combines NSSTC support for project man-agement, systems engineering, and engineering designcapabilities under one organization. SSDD personnelhave an extensive knowledge of program/projectmanagement and systems engineering, having led a teamto define MSFC’s implementation of NPG 7120.5A. Pastand ongoing flight project activities include:• Optical Transient Detector (OTD)• Lightning Mapper Sensor (LMS) flying on the

TRMM mission• Solar-B Project• GLAST Burst Monitor (GBM) for the

GLAST mission• Solar X-Ray Imager (SXI) for the Geostationary

Operational Environmental Satellite(GOES–M) mission

• Differential Ion Flux Probe—Mass Analysis(DIFP–M) instrument for the ProSEDS project

• Microgravity Crystal Growth DemonstrationProject for the Future-X Program

• High Energy Replicated Optics (HERO) researchballoon flight project.

4.1.5.2 GSFCGSFC Co-Is are from the Laboratory of ExtraterrestrialPhysics (LEP) which has a 30-year history of involve-ment in scientific instrumentation and analysis. LEP hasthe expertise and facilities needed to support the instru-mentation and analyses required for this proposed UAVinvestigation. LEP scientists have extensive investiga-tor experience in space flight and rocket programsincluding the GGS/WIND mission, CASSINI Saturnmission, Mars Surveyor Program, NLC–91 rocket pro-gram, MAC-Epsilon rocket program, Guara/MALTEDrocket program (Brazil, 1995) and DROPPS rocketprogram (Norway, 1999).

4.1.5.3 GA–ASIGA–ASI is the leader in UAV development, manufac-ture, and operation. The ALTUS II aircraft proposed forACES is a derivative of the Predator system. The Preda-tor system is now proven with 22,000 hours of fleetexperience. The ALTUS II system has flown 70 flights/209 flight hours without incidents. GA–ASI has oper-ated ALTUS in support of science missions in Kauai,Oklahoma, California, and the Florida Keys. In addition,GA–ASI has operated ALTUS in both restricted andpublic-use airspace.

4.1.5.4 IDEA, LLCThe Aerospace Engineering Group of IDEA, LLC is asmall business that has participated in several high-tech-nology programs for NASA. IDEA has provided experi-enced engineers, scientists, technicians and program

management personnel to the GSFC, the Kennedy SpaceCenter (KSC), and the Langley Research Center (LRC).

Since 1988, IDEA has supported numerous scientificinstrument developments and related activities.The Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SSBUV),Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS), SOLSE,SAGE II, CRISTA, Lidars, Cassini, and a NASA SBIRPhase II system (consisting of an ALTUS UAV, a suiteof 10 sensors supported by a VXI bus data system andassociated GSE) are some of the instruments and sys-tems for which IDEA has provided the full range ofdesign, development, fabrication, and operational sup-port. These instruments and support systems fly on theShuttle, balloons, sounding rockets, UAVs, aircraft, andsatellites. The staff of IDEA have been recognized foroutstanding performance and dedication.

As previously noted, IDEA’s SBIR Phase II payload(essentially ACES) was successfully integrated onto theALTUS and had two development flights during Sep-tember, 2000. The proposed ACES project will benefitfrom IDEA’s continued engineering, hardware, andoperations involvement as well as through its practicalintegration experience with the ALTUS platform.

4.1.6 Decision-Making ProcessThe WBS and organization structure define the limits ofindividual authority and responsibility relative to cost,schedule, and technical requirements. At the top levelthe PI, PM, and LSE jointly establish overall project goalsincluding budget allocations, project master schedules,and top-level technical requirements. The PI is the finalauthority regarding changes that affect project scope,while the PM is the delegated day-to-day authority onthe allocation of overall resources, schedules, and require-ments. Subsystem managers have the authority to estab-lish and maintain cost, schedule, and requirementsflowdowns within their subsystem. As long as changesare within a particular subsystem manager’s scope ofresponsibility and do not impact externally imposed con-straints (requirements, interfaces, schedule milestones,costs, or critical path), no approval is required of anyhigher authority.

4.2 Work Breakdown StructureThe ACES level 3 project WBS is shown in Figure 4.3.The ACES project WBS has been broken down by projectphases to the major task level in Table 4.4. The overallACES WBS has been used to develop the project sched-ule and has also been used to develop the ACESworkforce-staffing plan, by phase, found in Section 6.4of this proposal. A detailed WBS dictionary, by projectphase, is provided in Section 6.4 with the full detailed

47

WBS dictionary provided in Section 6.5.3. Project phasesare defined as predeployment (payload development andmission planning), deployment (mobilization, flight/mis-sion operations, and demobilization), and postdeployment(analysis/reporting).

4.3 Project Control PlanAlthough NPG 7120.5A—NASA Program and ProjectManagement Processes and Requirements—is not arequirement for the UAVSDP, the PM will manage theACES project using NPG 7120.5A as a guide tailoredfor the size and complexity of the UAV project. The ACESproject is managed utilizing a hierarchical WBS, withall work package schedules captured in an integratedproject schedule. The resources plan and schedule pro-vided in this proposal will become the baseline by whichthe ACES project is measured. System and subsystem

technical requirements and parameters are baselined andmanaged, with configuration control handled by a Con-figuration Control Board (CCB). The CCB reviews andcontrols all proposed changes of scope, requirements, anddesign and authorizes implementation of these changes.The ACES PM serves as the sole ACES documentationrepository and maintains copies of all quality records perMSFC ISO work instructions. These managementprocesses are detailed in the following sections.

4.3.1 Systems EngineeringThe ACES project will implement a systems engineer-ing approach using SP–6105, NASA Systems Engineer-ing Handbook and Marshall Procedures and Guidelines(MPG) 8060.1 as a guide, tailoring the process for thesize and complexity of the ACES project.

ACES Project1.0

ProjectManagement

1.1

Management1.1.1

Planning &Control1.1.2

Procurement & Contracts

Mgmt 1.1.3

ConfigurationManagement

1.1.4

ACESPayload

1.2

ALTUSUAV1.3

Systems EngineeringIntegration and Tests

1.4

ACES Operations

1.5

Science and DataManagement

1.6

Education and Public Outreach

1.7

Safety and Mission Assur.

1.8

SensorSubsystems

1.2.1

UAVMgmt.1.3.1

Systems Engineer1.4.1

OperationsPlanning

1.5.1

Science Activities1.6.1

Science LessonPlans 1.7.1

QualityAssurance

1.8.1

DataSubsystems

1.2.2

UAVEngineering,Integration,and Tests

1.3.2

Systems Integration1.4.2

OperationsSupport

1.5.2

Data Analysis1.6.2

Web Management1.7.2

Safety 1.8.2

PayloadSupport

Equipment1.2.3

UAVOperations

1.3.3

Systems Tests1.4.3

Data Archival1.6.3

Public Affairs1.7.3

Data Distribution1.6.4

Graduate Support1.7.4

Figure 4.3.—ACES WBS structure.

Table 4.4.—ACES WBS by project phases.

WBS element Element Description Lead Responsibility Applicable PhasePredeploy Deploy Postdeploy

1.1 Project management MSFC X X X1.2 ACES payload MSFC X 1.2.1 Sensor subsystems MSFC X 1.2.2 Data subsystems MSFC X 1.2.3 Payload support equipment IDEA X 1.3 ALTUS UAV GA X X 1.4 Systems engineering, integration, and tests MSFC X X 1.5 ACES operations MSFC X X 1.6 Science and data management MSFC X X X1.7 Education and public outreach MSFC X X X1.8 Safety and mission assurance MSFC X X

48

Overall project requirements will flow from the ACESScience Requirements Document (SRD) and the ALTUSAerial Vehicle Payload Integration Manual (GA–ASIdocument ASI–00112) to the ACES Requirements, Veri-fication, and Compliance (RVC) document, then to theACES-to-UAV Interface Contol Document (ICD) andsensor subsystem requirements documents and ICDs.Figure 4.4 outlines the flowdown of ACES projectrequirements. The ACES science team will develop theACES SRD. The RVC and ICDs will be developed bythe ACES LSE with input from GA–ASI and IDEA.GA–ASI and IDEA will approve the ACES payload toALTUS ICD and the ACES sensors to FPDS ICDrespectively. The LSE is responsible for ensuring thatthe requirements are complete, accurately defined anddocumented, unambiguous, and appropriately allocatedto the ACES subsystem elements. All requirements willbe rigidly controlled using configuration managementtechniques described in section 4.3.4. All requirementswill be thoroughly verified by test, analysis, orinspection. GA–ASI will provide input into theACES-to-ALTUS ICD.

4.3.2 Resources and ScheduleManagement

4.3.2.1 Resources ManagementThe PM, assisted by an experienced resource analyst, willbe responsible for conducting resources managementincluding reserves management, institutional require-ments, project requirements, contracts status, monthlyreports, and other resources requirements. To monitorproject manpower and costs and ensure compliance withbaselines, the PM will utilize the Marshall Accountingand Resources Tracking System (MARTS). MARTS isan effective Centerwide accounting database containing

all transactions related to all resources at MSFC includ-ing information on commitments, obligations, costs, dis-bursements, variances, contracts, and purchase orders.MARTS provides daily updates of all MSFC financialinformation and will be used in reporting ACESmanpower and cost status.

The PI will control/manage the science budget with con-tingency funds, in case greater than anticipated activityis required by the science team for risk mitigation or over-sight. Hardware development and operations budgets willbe controlled/managed by the PM with contingencyfunds. The distribution of contingency funds to WBSelements will be based upon continuous risk analysis.The PM will release contingency funds only with theapproval of the PI. Resources will be identified/controlledby the ACES PM through the development and imple-mentation of the NASA program operating plan (POP).Resources management will be accomplished throughproper interface with the ARC UAVSDP PO.

4.3.2.2 Schedule ManagementThe PM, assisted by an experienced schedule manager,will maintain the ACES master schedule provided in sec-tion 6.5.1. The PM will determine schedule logic, holdand assign schedule reserve, and develop appropriatemilestones for tracking and reporting. Any changes tothe ACES master schedule and associated milestonesmust be approved by the ACES PI. The scheduling pro-cess ensures that project schedules are integrated withthe project’s cost estimate and authorized budgets. Theschedule incorporates major project milestones/reviews,key technical events, key decision points, logic relation-ships, and interdependencies into an integrated hierar-chy of schedules that establish and maintain vertical andhorizontal relationships between and among all systemsand subsystems. Responsible team members have beenidentified for each line item in the detailed schedule. ThePO will use Microsoft Project 2000™, a cost effectiveand widely used tool, for schedule management. Project2000™ data is exportable to Microsoft Excel™ forfurther cost analysis or cross-platform data transfer.

4.3.2.3 MetricsThe ACES project control tools formally maintain theproject’s cost and schedule baselines, while providingfor the development and generation of timely perfor-mance measurement data and reports. These data and cor-responding reports provide the PM with the necessaryvisibility to analyze progress and identify any signifi-cant problems and issues in order to establish and imple-ment corrective action. Use of the ACES project controltools will provide for the orderly and systematic authori-zation of work and project budget and identify potential

Figure 4.4.—ACES requirements flowdown.

ACES ScienceRequirements Document

ALTUS PayloadIntegration Manual

ACES RequirementsVerification &

Compliance Document

ACES Payloadto UAV ICD

FPDS to PGSICD

ACES Sensorsto FPDS ICD

SystemsSpecifications

49

problem areas in sufficient time to implement proper man-agement actions. The ACES metrics will consist of majorproject review milestones, hardware delivery dates, andbudget variances.

4.3.3 Contract Management

4.3.3.1 PI Institution with the UAV ProviderThe ACES PO will establish a firm-fixed-price-incentive-award contract with the UAV provider, GA–ASI. The con-tract will establish a fixed price for UAV management,engineering, integration and test, mission planning, mobi-lization, and demobilization and a fixed hourly rate forflight operations. During the field campaign, many vari-ables affect the number of flight hours accomplished. Usingthis type of contract arrangement, NASA pays only forthe number of flight hours accomplished. The ACES sys-tems heritage and definition are such that a fixed pricecontract will be cost effective and prevent cost overrunsto the ACES project. Payment milestones will be estab-lished and monthly progress reports are required detailingthe status of technical progress against the baseline plan.

4.3.3.2 PI Institution With the Co-I Institutionand the Flight Range

An MOA will be established between the PI and the Co-Iinstitution, GSFC, and between the ACES PO and the JointPlanning and Customer Service Office (JPCSO) for KSCand Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) support of the ACESinvestigation. These types of agreements have served pastprojects well by establishing concise statements of workand scope of responsibility for each team institution, alongwith budget and management authorities.

4.3.3.3 PI Institution With the FPDSand Payload SupportEquipment Provider

The ACES PO will establish a firm-fixed-price-incentive-award contract with the FPDS and payload support equip-ment provider, IDEA. The contract will establish a fixedprice for the design modifications, fabrication, assembly,and tests of the FPDS and support equipment and supportfor the ACES payload and ACES/UAV integration and testactivities. A fixed-price contract is appropriate since thesetasks are well understood following the previous integra-tion activities of the ACES suite and the ALTUS UAV.Payment milestones will be established and monthlyprogress reports are required detailing the status oftechnical progress against the baseline plan.

4.3.4 Configuration ManagementConfiguration management (CM) is the process throughwhich ACES documents the functional and physical

baselines, controls changes to those baselines, and providesinformation on the state of change action. The PO plans tostart placing requirements and design documents under con-figuration management shortly after the Systems Require-ments Review (SRR). An ACES CCB will be establishedto ensure the baseline of the design and will be responsiblefor ACES configuration control. The ACES CCB willapprove and issue standard drawing numbers. Any ACESdocument or drawing that is issued a number will then beconsidered to be an ACES controlled document/drawingand will thereafter be subject to change/redline approvaland signature of the ACES CCB. ACES working drawingswill be held by the responsible engineer. Paper copies of allfinal ACES fabrication drawings will be held by the ACESPM, who will serve as the project repository for all con-trolled drawings and documents. The ACES CCB will signand date all controlled document/drawing baselines/redlines.The latest date of CCB signature will always indicate thecontrolling iteration of that drawing. As a minimum, theACES CCB will consist of the ACES PM (chair), PI, LSE,Safety and Mission Assurance representative, and thedesign engineer (for subject component) and will sign allcontrolled drawings and documents. A representative fromGA–ASI and IDEA will also serve on the board, as required,to address issues with ACES to UAV interfaces andpayload support equipment respectively.

Technical nonconformance reporting and disposition willbe conducted within the ACES team and will be resolvedby the members of the ACES CCB. The ACES team willevaluate and the CCB members will resolve all issues ofpotential impact upon mission safety and performance.Should circumstances require it, experts from outside theACES team will be sought for further comment and opin-ion. Nonconformances will be documented on MSFC Form(3473) Discrepancy Record (DR) and controlled anddispositioned by the ACES CCB. The CCB Chairman hasfinal approval authority for CCB actions.

Configuration of the ALTUS II UAV system is managedin accordance with the ANSI/ASOC Q–9001–9004(ISO–9001–9004) certification awarded on October 15,1999. All GA–ASI UAV systems are managed in accor-dance with this policy. The GA–ASI project engineer isresponsible for the CM of the ALTUS II system during pay-load integration and test flights. Pro E™ drawings of thepayload are not required by GA–ASI for CM purposes.

4.3.5 Project Assessment

4.3.5.1 Management ReviewsManagement reviews will include formal and informal sta-tus reviews with SSDD management and the ARC

50

UAVSDP Program Office. For informal status, the ACESPO will provide a monthly assessment of performanceagainst the baseline schedule, key milestones, and schedulemetrics such as program slack, and milestone completionrates, and schedule performance index. ACES project con-trol tools will generate monthly electronic reports of cost,schedule, and performance baselines. The SSDD andUAVSDP Office will receive written monthly reports fromthese project tools as well as accomplishments since the lastreporting period, plans for the next reporting period, currentrisks and risk mitigation plans, and status of issues and con-cerns. These reports will be reviewed between the PO andthe UAVSDP via monthly teleconference.

The ACES PI and PO will also present formal phase reviewsto the UAVSDP Office with a complete status of cost, sched-ule, and technical progress against the baseline including risksand risk mitigation plans. These phase reviews will take placeat the end of each project phase and will provide the UAVSDPProgram Office a decision point prior to proceeding to thenext phase of the project. In particular, the first campaignpostdeployment phase review will provide a decisionpoint for descoping the second campaign should the sci-ence and demonstration components of this proposal besatisfactorily achieved.

4.3.5.2 Technical ReviewsWe are proposing to streamline the ACES design reviewswith the elimination of a preliminary design review since:1) The ACES payload exists and has already flown on theALTUS UAV under an SBIR, and 2) modifications to thepreviously flown instrument suite are minor.

The ACES PM will conduct three major internal technicalreviews: A project-level System Requirements Review(SRR), a project-level Critical Design Review (CDR), anda project-level predelivery/posttest Preship Review (PSR).These internal reviews will be conducted in accordancewith MSFC ISO procedures. The Preship Review will pro-vide the UAVSDP with a decision point prior to initiatingthe deployment phase. In addition, the ACES PO, withMSFC Systems Management Office concurrence, willestablish an internal MSFC red team to provide an objec-tive, nonadvocate review of the plans and processes in placeto ensure that mission success and safety are being con-sidered and implemented. The red team reviews will beheld in parallel with the SRR and the two PSRs.

Following the deployment campaign, the PI will provideUAVSDP with a status of the deployment activities toprovide a decision point prior to transition into thepostdeployment phase.

4.3.5.3 Safety ReviewsThe PO will conduct an Airworthiness Flight SafetyReview (AFSR) at MSFC and a Flight ReadinessReview (FRR) at GA–ASI and a Deployment ReadinessReview (DRR) at PAFB to certify the following:• Hardware/software is ready for flight• Open work is planned and understood• Constraints to launch are identified• Flight operations personnel, documentation, and

critical facilities are ready to support operations.

4.3.6 Team Member Coordinationand Communication

The ACES development team recognizes the importanceof frequent and open communication both formally andinformally. Formal communication will take place in theform of status reviews and design reviews. Informally,the project will use a variety of communication resourcesto status issues and track progress against the baseline.The location of the ACES PO and PI in the same facilityat the NSSTC will provide opportunity for daily face-to-face communication. The only team members not ableto conduct daily face-to-face communication with theACES PI or PM are the GSFC Co-Is, the IDEA contrac-tors, and the GA–ASI contractors. Weekly scheduled tele-conferences, coordinated between the PI, PM, GSFC,IDEA, and GA–ASI will be held to assess progress anddiscuss issues and near-term plans. The ACES team willuse telephone, fax, and electronic mail for communica-tions as required. Site visits by all team members willalso be performed as required.

4.4 Master ScheduleThe overall ACES WBS has been used to develop theproject schedule. A top level ACES schedule is shown inFigure 4.5. The ACES master schedule is provided inSection 6.5.1. A detailed line-item schedule is providedin Section 6.5.2.

4.5 Project Risk Assessmentand Management Plan

Significant risk mitigation for ACES has already beenaccomplished. Under a separate SBIR, the proposedACES payload was integrated and flown aboard theALTUS. It should be noted that the successful comple-tion of this SBIR grant has permitted the conception,design, development, and flight testing of a complete,end-to-end UAV-based science demonstration project,thereby substantially reducing the risks and potentialcost overruns to the program for which we are currentlyproposing. In essence, we already possess a working

51

Fig

ure

4.5.

—T

op le

vel A

CE

S sc

hedu

le.

JF

MA

MJ

JA

SO

ND

JF

MA

MJ

JA

SO

ND

JF

MA

MJ

JA

SO

ND

JF

MA

MJ

JA

SO

ON

DFY

200

4FY

200

3FY

200

2FY

200

1Na

me

Resp

onsi

bilit

y

Maj

or E

vent

s/M

ilest

ones

Phas

e, P

resh

ip, F

light

R

eadi

ness

, Dep

loym

ent

Rea

dine

ss R

evie

ws

Cam

paig

n W

indo

w (I

& II

) of

Opp

ortu

nity

Sens

or D

ata

Anal

ysis

&

Arc

hivi

ng (I

& II

)

ACES

Pay

load

Inte

grat

ion

ACES

Pay

load

End

-to-

End

Test

ing

Payl

oad

Sens

or D

esig

n &

Mod

ifica

tion

Sche

dule

Res

erve

Pred

eplo

ymen

t (I &

II)

Activ

ities

Dep

loym

ent (

I & II

) Act

iviti

es

Post

depl

oym

ent (

I & II

) A

ctiv

ities

Flig

ht P

aylo

ad D

ata

Syst

em

(FPD

S) &

Gro

und

Proc

essi

ng

Syst

em (G

PS)

UAV

Nee

d D

ates

for

ACES

Pro

ject

T. K

im

T. K

im

T. K

imS.

Mitc

hell

S. M

itche

ll

S. M

itche

ll

S. M

itche

ll

R. B

lake

slee

R. B

lake

slee

R. B

lake

slee

R. B

lake

slee

Gen

. Ato

mic

s

Gen

. Ato

mic

s

R. B

lake

slee

Gen

. Ato

mic

s

R. B

lake

slee

Gen

. Ato

mic

s

Site

Sur

vey

KS

C T

IMI

ATP

Kic

koff

SR

RC

DR

Pay

load

Sen

sor

Des

ign

& M

odifi

catio

n

Pla

n, M

odifi

y S

/W &

Tes

t Sys

. Tes

t (I)

Mod

ifiy

S/W

& T

est S

ys. T

est (

II)

AC

ES

Pay

load

Inte

grat

ion

AF

SR

@M

SF

CK

SC

TIM

IIK

SC

TIM

III

11/1

602

/01

05/0

106

/01

08/0

110

/01

01/0

105

/31

05/3

1

01/1

6

05/0

112

/17

02/1

505

/01

09/0

1

11/1

601

/16

AC

ES

Pay

load

/UA

V In

tegr

atio

n &

Tes

t (I)

AC

ES

/UA

V In

tegr

atio

n &

Tes

t (II)

Dep

loym

ent S

ite S

etup

& T

ests

(I)

04/1

6 05/1

605

/31

Sen

sor

Dat

a A

naly

sis

(I)

& A

rchi

ving

09/1

3

Sen

sor

Dat

a A

naly

sis

(II)

& A

rchi

ving

09/0

202

/13

UA

V D

eplo

ymen

t (I)

Lea

se N

eed

Tim

e

04/2

309

/05

UA

V D

eplo

ymen

t (II)

Lea

se N

eed

Tim

e

05/2

609

/08

08/3

0

Cam

paig

n W

indo

w (

I) o

f Opp

ortu

nity

06/0

308

/30

Cam

paig

n W

indo

ws

(II)

of O

ppor

tuni

ty

06/1

809

/01

05/1

606

/17

05/1

5

Dei

nteg

rate

Pay

load

—P

ack

& S

hip

to M

SF

C (

I)

09/0

109

/12

Dei

nteg

rate

Pay

load

—P

ack

& S

hip

to M

SF

C (

II)

09/0

209

/15

AC

ES

Pay

load

Rec

alib

ratio

n &

Tes

t @ M

SF

C

02/1

7

AC

ES

Pay

load

End

-to-

End

Tes

ting

01/1

702

/15

Sch

edul

e R

eser

ve

02/1

804

/15

02/1

4

05/1

505/1

305

/12

05/3

106

/17

10/1

503

/14

Site

Sur

vey

II

PS

R I

PS

R II

FR

R I

FR

R II

Sch

edul

e R

eser

ve

Pre

ferr

ed W

indo

w (

I)P

refe

rred

Win

dow

(II)

PhR

I05

/15

PhR

III

DR

R I

DR

R II

PhR

II

52

sensor suite, a successful integration plan, and have con-ducted a series of test flights with complete data through-put. The modifications (see Section 3.1) are consideredancillary in nature to the package already built.

This SBIR effort verified physical and functional com-patibility. Of special note, it removed any risk associatedwith interfaces and electromagnetic compatibility, or withthe aircraft being an unsuitable platform for making elec-trical measurements. In fact, the ALTUS was found to bean electrically quiet aircraft, ensuring that the proposedthunderstorm electrical measurements can be easily andsuccessfully achieved.

In the sections that follow, we discuss the risk associatedwith scope (i.e., technical risks), schedule, and budgetalong with the risk management approach that willbe adopted.

4.5.1 ScopeThe ACES payload margins are summarized in Table 4.5.

4.5.1.1 Payload PowerPayload electrical power consumption is prevented frombeing a risk item by payload power budgeting. This isachieved through measurement and characterization atthe integration level conducted by the science team priorto the ALTUS payload integration phase at the GA–ASIEl Mirage, CA flight operations facility. This will thenbe consolidated by a total payload power measurementwhen installed onto the ALTUS and fully functional. Asnoted in Section 3.3.1, the ACES payload requires only378 W, well below the 800 W available; hence, payloadpower is considered low risk.

4.5.1.2 Payload MassPayload mass is prevented from being a risk item bydetailed payload weight budgeting. On arrival at the ElMirage facility, the payload items will be weighed alongwith all mounting and installation hardware. The pro-posed ACES payload weight is 183 lb (see Section 3.1.1)which includes mounting and installation hardware. Atthis level, there is sufficient contingency margin withoutencroaching on the ALTUS 330 lb payload weight limit.

4.5.1.3 Payload VolumePayload volume is prevented from being a risk item byconfiguring the equipment suite within the payloadenvelope details, presented in the ALTUS Aerial VehiclePayload Integration Manual (GA–ASI documentASI–00112). The existing ACES payload has a vol-ume of 6.8 cu ft, falling well within the 18.6 cu ftavailable for payloads.

4.5.1.4 UAV AltitudeThe risk to achieve flight to the required 40,000 to55,000 feet mission altitude range is considered low.The ALTUS system has demonstrated flight at this alti-tude in prior NASA flight programs. ALTUS has flownat 55,000 feet for up to 4 hours and at 50,000 feet for8 hours.

4.5.1.5 UAV AvailabilityThe ALTUS system is fully dedicated to the ACES projectfrom the beginning of ACES/UAV integration and teststhrough the completion of each deployment campaign.Schedule margins are discussed in section 4.5.2.

4.5.1.6 UAV Turnaround TimeAs previously discussed, GA–ASI’s planning factor fornormal turnaround of flights is one flight every 3 days.However, the actual factor has to be determined onsiteduring deployment, considering all of the factors ofweather, mission payload performance, range availability,etc. Back-to-back missions will be considered.

4.5.1.7 UAV Weather CapabilitiesThe ALTUS UAV is the equivalent of a light airplane. Assuch, it is subjected to the same weather restrictions,i.e., turbulence, thunderstorms, crosswind limitations, etc.ALTUS can fly in IFR conditions. ALTUS cannot fly intoknown icing conditions and it cannot fly at night withoutan infrared nose camera installed for landing. It is notplanned that ALTUS will conduct any night missions aspart of this deployment.

4.5.1.8 UAV Range ConstraintsThe ALTUS is range constrained by range distance aspreviously identified. ALTUS missions will remain within125 n mi distance from the PAFB ground control system(GCS) site. Additionally, the aircraft will not be flowndirectly over the PAFB GCS site to avoid a data linkdeadzone directly overhead. The standard minimumradius for flight near the GCS site is altitude dependent;e.g., at 55,000 feet the minimum radius is 30 n mi and at16,000 feet the minimum radius is 16 n mi. Adjustmentsand modifications to the C-band antenna are planned to

Risk ACES ALTUS MarginRequirement Limit

Payload mass 183 lbs 330 lbs 147 lbsPayload power 378 watts 800 watts 422 wattsPayload volume 6.8 cu ft 18.6 cu ft 11.8 cu ft

Table 4.5.—ACES payload margins.

53

Identify Productand Process Risk

Analyze Probabilityof Occuranceand Impact

PrioritizeRisks

ImplementPlan

Develop Mitigation Plans

for High-RiskItems

Figure 4.6.—Risk management process.

accommodate the ACES mission. The C-band antennawill be modified to increase the beam width and narrowthe deadzone due to the high altitudes that will have tobe flown in close proximity to GCS for this deployment.Engineering system check flights of this system will beflown at El Mirage prior to deployment.

4.5.1.9 Other Risk Mitigation OptionsDuring ACES deployment, flight plans will be priori-tized by risk with less risky flight plans executed. Thiswould include, to the degree possible, operating ALTUSat a lower altitude and acquiring storm observations far-ther away from the storm. Initial storm engagement rules,worked out between the science team and the UAV pro-vider, are believed to be very conservative. Also, as notedearlier, to reduce the risk of lightning strike to theaircraft, onboard electric field sensors will monitorambient electric fields.

4.5.2 Schedule Risks MitigationThe ACES project schedule has been developed to pro-vide adequate schedule margin for risk mitigation.Approximately 2 months of schedule slack exist betweenthe completion of sensor integration and tests and thestart of the ACES payload/UAV integration and tests. Inaddition, a 3-month window has been identified for theflight campaign. The ACES campaign is planned for1 month thereby providing a 2-month schedule reservefor the campaign itself. Likewise, a similar amount ofschedule reserve exists between the first and secondfield campaigns.

4.5.3 Budget MitigationWe have proposed to conduct two field campaigns dur-ing this investigation. Therefore, we would be able tosuccessfully accommodate a descoped mission, consist-ing of one field campaign, should funding levels be at amuch lower level. The major impact of such a reducedmission would essentially be to reduce the observationsby half, thus decreasing the overall measurement statis-tics. In addition, we would lose the opportunity toimprove upon and extend measurements made in the firstcampaign. The ACES project cost plan has included a10 % contingency for cost reserves.

4.5.4 Risk Management PlanThe proposed mission has been designed to mitigate theeffects of risks on the successful outcome of the investi-gation. It is possible, however, that unanticipated eventsmay occur that will introduce risk areas during projectimplementation. The PM will implement an ongoing pro-cess that will allow, in fact encourage, each individualon the project team to bring any perceived or actual risksto management’s attention at their first occurrence. TheACES project will use a hierarchical approach to howrisk will be managed and will use a descending orderdecision path for mitigating risk. The first level toresolve risk is by the allocation of technical resourcesand margins. If that is an insufficient or inappropriatesolution, then cost and schedule reserves will be used.Finally, descoping is a last resort and, if used, will becoordinated with the UAVSDP Office. Figure 4.6 depictsthe ACES risk management process. The first step is toidentify project risks including technical, cost, andschedule. Since ACES instruments and instrument soft-ware exist and are of proven design and flight heritage,the elements of risk are primarily cost, schedule, andthe UAV.

4.6 Liability Assessment PlanGA–ASI has included the cost of liability and hull insur-ance for the ALTUS II UAV aircraft in the cost proposal.The insurance is provided by a commercial insurancepolicy based on the evaluated replacement cost/risk of theaircraft/equipment. Aircraft insurance cost is based on aper-flight-hour basis and is included in the flight-hour cost.During transit to/from deployment sites, the UAV systemis insured by the commercial shipper as part of the trans-portation cost or is included as a separate item byGA–ASI as an identifiable cost. Insurance of ground-basedequipment at the deployment site is borne by GA–ASI’sgeneral insurance policy coverage. Third party liabilityis provided by GA–ASI’s general liability coverage.This coverage is in the amount of $6.2M and coversGA–ASI liability.

54

55

5. Outreach Plan

5.1 Outreach ConceptWe will develop an outreach effort with three major com-ponents as shown in Table 5.1. The overall goals of ouroutreach are to increase public awareness of the ACESproject and the NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE)and inform the public of the purpose and benefits ofACES and the ESE. This outreach will create a positivepublic image of NASA and the ESE.

The U.S. public already has a heightened interest inmeteorological and storm related research due to the manyprograms on the Discovery Channel, PBS Nova, andothers dealing with severe storm and lightning research.In addition, many TV stations around the country regu-larly include real-time lightning strike graphics duringtheir weather broadcasts, and often preempt regular pro-gramming during periods of local severe weather withspecial weather reports.

The public also has a great fascination for cutting-edgetechnology. The ALTUS UAV represents an exciting newgeneration of aircraft pushing the frontiers of technol-ogy with its future and applications still to be established.Perhaps, as proposed by ACES, that future will includeusing UAV aircraft as meteorological research platforms.Like the severe storm and weather research noted above,cutting-edge technology (especially that involving avia-tion) is the focus of popular programs on the DiscoveryChannel, Nova, and elsewhere on TV and in print.

By capitalizing on the great interest in science, weather,and technology that already exists with the Americanpublic, we maintain it will be easy to get the public inter-ested and excited about the ACES program. Our confi-dence that this will be the case is bolstered by the excellentresponse several recent NASA-sponsored programs havereceived including the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mis-sion (TRMM); the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS), asensor on the TRMM platform; the Optical TransientDetector (OTD), the predecessor to LIS; LightningImaging Sensor Data Application Demonstration(LISDAD), a demonstration of the value of total

lightning measurements; and the Convective and Mois-ture Experiment (CAMEX), a large field program withrecent focus on hurricanes. These highly visible missionshave generated an enthusiastic and strong public interestresulting in good publicity for NASA and these programs.

We will adopt a three-fold approach to generate aneffective and broad outreach. Access to traditional newsservices with the aid of the Marshall Space Flight Center(MSFC) public affairs office (PAO) will create immedi-ate coverage in the form of good press. More in-depthtreatments and information about the project will be madeavailable through Web-based outreach. Finally, weintend to create an innovative education project designedto inspire the next generation of scientists and engineersthat will achieve long-term benefits to ESE and NASA.

5.2 Media Outreach

5.2.1 Public AffairsWe will utilize the MSFC PAO to coordinate, facilitate,and guide the promotion of the ACES program with thetraditional news media. This office provides an immedi-ate and effective outreach to the public. A wide audienceis reached and broad public interest generated throughthe production of original news stories and timely pressreleases that convey the importance and significance ofACES research. These press releases and news storieswill be coordinated to coincide with key project events.Examples include project selection, initiation of scienceflights, and scientific discoveries. Special events, suchas hosting a media day at the deployment site, can beplanned to showcase both the aircraft and highlight theplanned science mission.

We have ample evidence that this outreach will be suc-cessful. Through our association with public affairs, thelightning team at MSFC regularly engages in media con-tacts. Our research and its relevance to NASA, ESEobjectives, and the nation have regularly been profiledon Good Morning America, the Discovery Channel, theDiscovery Science Channel, and PBS, as well as throughradio and newspaper stories. Even real-time Web inter-views have been conducted. The International Confer-ence on Atmospheric Electricity (the foremost conferencein the world in this field) was hosted by the MSFC

Table 5.1.—Methods for achieving public awareness provided by the ACES outreach.

Traditional media Immediate Broad based Introductory Hear and seeWeb based In-depth Target groups Comprehensive Explore and study Educational lesson plan Inspirational Students and teachers Focused Learn by doing, “hands on”

Outreach Impact and Benefits Outreach Informational Method to AcheiveComponent to NASA and ESE Coverage Content Public Awareness

56

lightning group in 1999. That conference generated agreat deal of public interest and received wide coverage,including considerable coverage highlighting and ben-efiting NASA ESE. We will apply this same successfulapproach to ACES.

5.2.2 Web-Based OutreachOutreach through traditional media sources, whileimmediate and beneficial, has the major draw back thatit is often short-lived. In addition, comprehensive treat-ment of key issues is often not provided. Web-based out-reach provides the means to address both theseshortcomings while providing an alternative and comple-mentary method to inform the public and distributeinformation about this project and its results. In addi-tion, it is possible to target specific groups of individuals(e.g., students, teachers, scientists, general public, newsmedia, etc.) to better communicate the purpose, benefits,and results of ACES to the nation and these target groups.

The MSFC lightning team, NSSTC/Global Hydrologyand Climate Center (GHCC) teams, and the NSSTC/Global Hydrology Research Center (GHRC) have devel-oped highly acclaimed and frequently accessed Web siteshighlighting science programs, spacecraft, field cam-paigns, data products and data services. Example sitesinclude www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov, thunder.msfc.nasa.gov,ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov and ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/camex3.Figure 5.1 illustrates a link to a Web page that highlightsresearch results from our lightning group. We willpattern the ACES project Web site after these successfulsites. The same resources, personnel, and expertise usedto create those sites will be applied to the developmentof the ACES Web pages. The site will be linked to keysites at the NSSTC (see examples above). The projectWeb site will include: mission description, aircraft, andsensors overview; news and events; deployment infor-mation; operation plans; browse products; and databaseaccess. This site will be created early in the project, sup-port ACES campaign activities, and live on after themission to provide information and data access.

Figure 5.1.—Web page “screen capture” from the popular science.nasa.gov site promoting lightning researchat NASA.

57

We also plan to make use of the Science@NASA Websites developed and sponsored by the Science Directorateat MSFC. In fact, the stated mission of Science@NASAis to help the public understand how exciting NASAresearch is and to help NASA scientists fulfill their out-reach responsibilities. The sites supported by the MSFCScience Directorate include:• science.nasa.gov• kids.msfc.nasa.gov• www.thursdaysclassroom.com.Also, starting in January, 2001 the MSFC Education Pro-grams Department has begun NASAexplores, a newInternet-based lesson plan delivery service(see www.nasaexplores.com). NASAexplores provideseducational content based on real—not theoretical—research, development, and events. This program providesexcellent synergy with the education outreach that we areproposing for ACES as discussed in the next section.

5.3 Education Outreach

5.3.1 Lesson Plan ConceptWe will create an innovative lesson plan package thatwill bring the ACES project into American classrooms.Lesson plans will be developed for teachers in the 3–5,6–8, and 9–12 grade levels, based on actual ACES fieldactivities. We envision that the lesson plans will result ina significant long-term impact and value to NASA andESE by influencing and inspiring the next generation ofscientists and engineers for many years following theACES program. The lesson plans will help studentsexperience the fun and excitement of NASA researchwhile learning important scientific concepts. From a sci-ence standpoint, the lesson plans will focus on meteorol-ogy, weather, and weather forecasting. More importantly,the lessons will address the decision-making process thatdirects the conduct of the scientific research. The stu-dents will be able to apply the decision making skillslearned from the ACES lesson plan to their everyday life.

Weather forecasting will be a key activity during theACES field campaigns (this is true for all aircraft cam-paigns). The ALTUS aircraft will only be sent on mis-sions on days that have a high probability for stormdevelopment within the observational domain at KSC tobest utilize the limited number of flight hours availableto the program. Weather must also be considered at thebase of operations, since storms and crosswinds canadversely impact the ability of ALTUS to safely takeoffor return. Yet weather is not the only consideration formaking a Go-No Go decision. The number of flighthours and days remaining in the deployment must alsobe considered. For example, the ALTUS might be sent

on a day with marginal storm prospects if only a fewdays remain in the campaign. On the other hand, theALTUS might be held down on a day with a good prob-ability of storms if the forecast for the following day iseven better (or if instrument, crew rest, or other factorsdictate a down day).

The lesson plans will be designed to teach meteorologyand forecasting concepts. Moreover, the lesson plans willhave students make Go-No Go decisions based onselected input data, helping them learn to digest data,deal with information gaps (or faulty information), anddevelop and improve their decision-making skills. Fol-lowing instruction provided within the lesson package,students will be given the opportunity to make the sametype of “real-time” Go-No Go decisions that were madein the field using the actual data employed during thecampaign. This will convey a better appreciation for theresearch process and demonstrate that the “answers arenot always found in the back of the book.”

The majority of the materials needed to develop the les-son plans will be derived from the data, forecast infor-mation, and decisions made during the deployment phase.We will use actual forecast data, decisions, and results.During the deployment, we plan to videotape the pre-flight weather briefings and the postflight (if oneoccurred) debriefs. Following deployment, the videos,field notes, and acquired data (including aircraft videoand sensor observations) will be gathered together to pre-pare the lesson plans. The lesson plans will be tailored toeach age group. For example, the lower-grade versionwill have fewer variables and less ambiguity while theupper levels will have more variables, ambiguity, andmissing/bad data. During each campaign, we should haveas many as 30-days worth of forecasts and ancillary datato develop exercises in the decision-making process.

5.3.2 Lesson Plan StructureThe lesson plan package will be divided into two parts,with Part I focusing on meteorological fundamentals andPart II introducing specific applications and the flightdecision exercises. Part I of the lesson plan package willbegin with an introduction to the ACES program. Wewill describe, in age appropriate language, the impor-tance and benefit of the ACES science demonstration andits relevance to broader NASA Earth science themes. Wewill also present details pertaining to the ALTUS aircraftsystem, the scientific instrumentation suite, and sciencemeasurements. Following the introduction, one or moreself-contained lessons on fundamental meteorologicaland weather concepts will be presented.

58

Part II of the lesson plan package contains the reallyinnovative part of this educational outreach. It willbegin with a primer on how to forecast the probability ofthunderstorm occurrence in the target area using the datasets that will be provided. Reference back to the Part Ibasic meteorology results will help the students under-stand the physical basis for the forecast. Next, followingthe forecast primer, the real fun begins. Students, work-ing alone or in teams, will make forecasts using actualACES data sets. They will have to decide either to fly ornot fly the aircraft based on the current forecast, the fore-cast for the next day, and the conditions of the aircraft,crew, and instrumentation. Following their decision, theywill learn what the experts in the field decided (and why),and what actually occurred (and why). In Section 5.3.3,we present an example of how this process would pro-ceed. Data from each day available during the month-long deployment will be offered in the flight decisionexercises presented in Part II of the lesson plans. Weintend to include all our “real-life” cases, including oneswhere WE missed the forecast. We will also include caseswhere we did forecast correctly, but were unable to capi-talize on the good forecast due to instrument, aircraft, orother problems. This will allow the students to see allaspects of scientific research.

For the good flight days, we will present special lessonadditions dealing with some aspect of the science obser-vations acquired that day. Some teachers may want toconcentrate on these days where we obtained good flightdata and lead discussions on these results. In all cases,the teachers will be given leeway and flexibility to tailorthe lessons to their own class.

5.3.3 Discussion of the FlightDecision Exercises

Making a Go-No Go flight decision based on actual ACESdata sets represents the unique aspect of the proposedlesson plans. Once the students have completed the fore-casting primer in Part II, they may start a flight decisionexercise. As noted earlier, a team approach may be veryeffective. Since almost all of our flight and nonflight dayswill be presented, the teacher will be able to choosebetween days that have easy, moderate, or difficult solu-tions. The target grade level (either mid-elementary,middle school, or advanced high school) will also deter-mine the complexity and quantity of the data presenta-tion. At the more advanced levels, missing (sites that didnot report weather conditions) or bad data (sites thatreported erroneous data) may be considered as well.

The students will make the thunderstorm forecast usingtechniques presented in the primer. Older students may

be asked to provide an additional forecast at the ALTUSairfield (e.g., what is the possibility that a return to basemay be adversely impacted by storms), determinethe impact of the missing or bad data on their fore-cast, or consider other data (e.g., days or flighthours remaining in the deployment) as they maketheir Go-No Go decision.

Once the students have made their forecasts and Go-NoGo decision, we will present to them the forecast andflight decision that was actually made in the field. Thispresentation may be provided in different formats(e.g., text, graphics, or video). This presentation will alsobe preflight, that is, the forecast from the experts will befrom the same set of “knowledge” that the students used.We will tell them what we did with the data (includingany forecaster discussions of the data). This will presentopportunities for the students to see if there was any-thing in the data that they missed (or even things in thedata that the experts missed).

The next step is the forecast and flight decision valida-tion. We will describe to the students what actually hap-pened. We may have made a correct Go decision andcollected important storm data. Perhaps the experts inthe field predicted storms and nothing happened. Per-haps the opposite result occurred, with the developmentof wonderful storms that we could only watch from theground because we made a No Go decision. Perhaps wepredicted storms but the ALTUS experienced a mechani-cal problem and could not fly. We will present a discus-sion of the forecast we made and the actual weather thatoccurred that day. Regardless of the outcome, we willpresent a discussion of the forecast we made and theactual weather that occurred that day. If the weatherturned out different than the forecast, we will attempt toexplain why this happened. On occasions when the stu-dents do a better job than the experts in predicting storms,they will be challenged to identify and explain why theydid better. In each case, we will provide information tothe teacher that will give the students opportunities tolearn from both good and bad forecast decisions.

After participating in several “flight day decisions,” thestudents should begin to learn that basic research isexciting, fun, and a career path they might think aboutpursuing. They should also learn that there are system-atic approaches to finding solutions to problems that haveno easy answers. The students will learn from their“incorrect” forecasts and decisions, learn to recognizefalse or misleading data, and make sure that the data sup-ports their conclusions. Most importantly, the studentswill learn the basic concepts of the scientific method,

59

quantitative reasoning, and data analysis and that thesesystematic approaches to problem solving can be appliedto their everyday decisions.

5.3.4 Lesson Plan DevelopmentWe recognize the importance of involving teachers andeducators in the development of the proposed lesson planpackage so that it will be educational and fun, userfriendly and flexible, and relevant to the needs of today’steachers and students. At the same time, the plans mustprominently promote the purpose and benefits providedby NASA and ESE. To ensure that this will occur, wewill work closely with Mr. Greg Cox of the Universityof Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) Global Learning andObservations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) pro-gram who will provide leadership, guidance, and exper-tise to this activity. Greg Cox is a Space Grant Fellowsupporting K–12 math, science, and technology reformissues in Alabama, and a former consultant to the MSFCEducation Office. We will also consult with master teach-ers in our area who teach students in the grade levels weare targeting with this lesson plan package. In addition,we will coordinate and consult with the MSFC Educa-tion Programs Department to tap into the resources,experience base, and distribution techniques that thisdepartment offers. Dr. Doug Mach will oversee the les-son plan development and serve as the lead interfacebetween the teachers and the ACES science team.

Together, we will proceed to outline the best format andcontent needed to provide lesson plans compatible withcurrent teaching methods and curricula. We will producea document to guide us in gathering the relevant infor-mation required from the ACES deployment to facilitatequick integration of the forecast and flight data into thelesson plan database. During deployment, we willacquire the relevant information into the lesson plan for-mat. After deployment, we will consult again with GregCox, the master teachers, and others to create the actuallesson plan package. We will test the lesson plan on stu-dents in the Huntsville and Hartselle, AL school system.We will use the feedback we gather from these tests torefine the lesson plan format. Once the lesson plan for-mat and database are finalized, we will create a CD setfor distribution to schools around the country. Weenvision that the lessons may also be made availableon the Web for access and download. In addition, wewill work with the MSFC Educations ProgramsOffice for inclusion of lesson plans into the Web-basedNASAexplores program.

We will configure our lesson plan to be as flexible aspossible. We want teachers to use the lessons in their

classrooms regardless of the amount of time they candevote to the subject. We will make each section asself-contained as possible so that teachers can choose thesections they want to present to their students. We willprovide a teacher’s guide that will detail the goals andmajor points of each lesson and suggest possible waysthe lesson can be integrated into the teacher’s own cur-riculum. With the support of our master teachers, weintend to make the ACES lesson plan package simple touse, interesting, fun, and relevant.

5.4 Relationship With OngoingActivities

The ACES outreach program is not being developed fromscratch or in a vacuum. Rather, as discussed in the previ-ous sections, the ACES outreach components will takegreat advantage of the existing and highly successfuloutreach activities that are ongoing at MSFC. Many ofthese services (e.g., Public Affairs, Science@NASA,NASAexplores, etc.) will be provided at little or no costto the ACES program. The professional staffs associatedwith these services already know how to inform andexcite the public and increase public awareness. Thesegoals align with the ACES outreach objectives. There-fore, we will utilize their help to communicate the pur-pose, benefits, and results of the ACES program to thepublic in an exciting and clear manner. This will providesignificant savings in time, resources (personnel anddollars), and development while dramatically increas-ing the probability that the ACES outreach plan willsuccessfully achieve its outreach objectives.

5.5 Graduate StudentParticipation

In the first proposal submission, we proposed to supporta graduate student in the atmospheric or computer sci-ences. We will maintain that support. The graduate willparticipate in pre-mission preparations, in the fielddeployment, and subsequent data processing, analysis andresearch. The student will gain invaluable experiencefrom his or her “hands on” field research, along with thepractical aspect of tuition and salary coverage. NASAand the country will also benefit since the experiencewill help train him or her to be part of the next genera-tion of space scientists. It is possible for the graduatestudent to be involved in all aspects of the project (thelevel of responsibility will depend on whether the stu-dent is working toward an MS or Ph.D. degree). Oppor-tunities will exits to work with sensor hardware,meteorology, and computer software, depending on theinterests and background of the student.

60