From Requirements to Capabilities:From Requirements to Capabilities:NASA'S EVOLVING APPROACH TO NASA'S EVOLVING APPROACH TO
MAXIMIZING APPLICATIONS RETURN MAXIMIZING APPLICATIONS RETURN FROM OUR EARTH OBSERVING FROM OUR EARTH OBSERVING
SATELLITESSATELLITES
From Requirements to Capabilities:From Requirements to Capabilities:NASA'S EVOLVING APPROACH TO NASA'S EVOLVING APPROACH TO
MAXIMIZING APPLICATIONS RETURN MAXIMIZING APPLICATIONS RETURN FROM OUR EARTH OBSERVING FROM OUR EARTH OBSERVING
SATELLITESSATELLITES
Dr. Stephen VolzAssociate Director for Flight ProgramsEarth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate
2
Where was NASA Earth Science 10 years ago?
ERBS
UARS
Topex/Poseidon
TOMS ROSES Products Delivered
FY1996 – FY2000(in 1,000s)
3
Where are we now?
4
Completed the 2009 Senior Review
Science scores based on intrinsic science value of dataset, relevance to ESD science goals, and data product maturity.
Utility scores based on intrinsic value of data products, frequency and timeliness of use.
Mission Science Score Utility Score Technical Risk Cost Risk FY10-11 FY12-13Aqua Outstanding Very High Medium Medium-Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
Terra Outstanding Very High Medium Medium-Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
Aura Outstanding High Medium Medium-Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
TRMM Outstanding Very High Medium Medium-Low Continue/InGuide Continue/InGuide
QuikSCAT Outstanding Very High High Medium-High Continue/InGuide Continue/Augment
Jason-1 Outstanding Very High Medium Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
GRACE Outstanding Very High Medium Low Continue/Augment Continue/InGuide
CloudSat Very Good High Low Low Continue/Augment Continue/InGuide
SORCE Very Good High High Medium Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
CALIPSO Very Good Some Low Low Continue/Augment Continue/InGuide
ICESat Very Good Some High Medium Continue/Reduce split vote
EO-1 Good Some Medium Low Continue/InGuide split vote
ACRIMSAT Good Some Low Low Continue/Augment Close-Out
ConclusionMission Science Score Utility Score Technical Risk Cost Risk FY10-11 FY12-13
Aqua Outstanding Very High Medium Medium-Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
Terra Outstanding Very High Medium Medium-Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
Aura Outstanding High Medium Medium-Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
TRMM Outstanding Very High Medium Medium-Low Continue/InGuide Continue/InGuide
QuikSCAT Outstanding Very High High Medium-High Continue/InGuide Continue/Augment
Jason-1 Outstanding Very High Medium Low Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
GRACE Outstanding Very High Medium Low Continue/Augment Continue/InGuide
CloudSat Very Good High Low Low Continue/Augment Continue/InGuide
SORCE Very Good High High Medium Continue/Augment Continue/Augment
CALIPSO Very Good Some Low Low Continue/Augment Continue/InGuide
ICESat Very Good Some High Medium Continue/Reduce split vote
EO-1 Good Some Medium Low Continue/InGuide split vote
ACRIMSAT Good Some Low Low Continue/Augment Close-Out
5
The Afternoon or A-Train Constellation The A-Train Constellation is a prime example of a successful multi-satellite
constellation, combining measurements from 5 satellites and two space agencies (CNES & NASA)
Soon to have a 6th added – Glory – in 2010 JAXA will be joining the A-Train with the GCOM-W1 satellite flying the AMSR-2
instrument (follow-on to AMSR-E which flies on the Aqua satellite) OCO-2 will join them all in 2013
8
5
6
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 to date May
(in Millions)
~8,000,000 Products in 2000
~8,000,000 Products in 2000
~250,000,000 Products in 2009
>30X increase over 2000
~250,000,000 Products in 2009
>30X increase over 2000
Data Products Delivered: FY00 thru May 2010
7
Discipline/ mission specific data systems
Community-specific standards only
Data inter-use proved cumbersome
Improved access to heritage data
Cross-system search and order access via data interoperability model
Common distri-bution format (HDF); other formats also supported
<1990 Mid-1990s
Evolution of Data System Capabilities
• Support for high data volumes
• Integrated core plus coupled elements
• Common data model
• Expanded software tools and services
• Options to support or interoperate with
external data sources
• Coexistence of hetero-geneous, distributed
data providers / information partners
• Minimal set of core standards
• Support for community-specific
standards
• Reusable software
• Service Oriented Architecture
• On-line archives and cross-system service
invocation
• Ease of innovation and technology infusion
Late 90s + Present to near future
Lessons learned and information technology advances coupled with user working group and advisory council advice and ideas supports a continuously evolving data system with growing capabilities for the
user community
Phase C/D: Missions In Development
9
ESD Missions in Development & Formulation
GLORYNov 2010
NPPSep 2011
AQUARIUSLate 2010 (TBR) LDCM
Dec 2012
SMAPNov 2014
GPMJul 2013Nov 2014
ICESat-2Oct 2015
OCO-2Feb 2013
Phase DPhase DPhase D
Phase B
Phase C
Phase CPhase BPhase A
Mission Studies in Pre-Formulation
11
ESD Missions in Pre-Formulation thru 2020
GRACE FO2016
DESDynI Lidar & Radar
2017SAGE III2014
CLARREO-22020
CLARREO-12017
PACE2019
SWOT2020
EV-22017
Phase A
Pre Phase A
ASCENDS2020
InstrumentDevelopments
EV-I12015
EV-I22016
EV-I32017
EV-I42018
GMI#22013
12
Where are we going? The Challenge
In 2007 the US National Academy of Sciences provided a road map with measurements and mission priorities
The Decadal Survey also indicated that NASA needed to spend greater effort to enable the societal benefits that could be achieved from its orbiting observatories.
We have initiated our first DS missions with a focus on renewed focus on applications
13
Project & Program Applications Assessments
In 2009 we started an assessment of how the operating and foundational NASA missions are achieving their potential, and what we (NASA and partner Agencies) can do to ensure they do achieve that potential
At the mission level NASA is conducting mission-focused applications development studies on the first two tiers of Decadal Survey missions So far, applications workshops have been held for SMAP,
HyspIRI, CLARREO, DESDynI, ACE, and GEO-CAPE
At the Program level, in February 2010, NASA convened a 3 day workshop together with many US Agencies and NGOs to understand the user perspective for our upcoming missions This is second of what is to be a sustained activity Follow-up workshop is planned for October 2010
14
February 2010 Workshop Findings for NASA
1. Strategica) Accelerate use of NASA data for applications and societal benefitb) Develop and maximize government, private, and academic partnershipsc) Organize around grand challenges in areas to be determinedd) Leverage Existing activities
2. Organizationala) Integrate applications users into mission teams as early as possible b) Conduct periodic user meetings and encourage more frequent
interactions of subgroups and agency partnersc) Train the next generation
3. Dataa) Ensure data continuityb) Improve infrastructure to provide access to high level data productsc) Improve infrastructure to provide rapid access to data
15
Missions Distributed by NASA Flight Project Life Cycle
NASA:DESDynICLARREOSWOTASCENDSACEGEO-CAPEHyspIRIGRACE FOPACE
NASA/NOAA:QuikSCAT FO
NASA:ICESat-2SAGE III
NASA/NOAA:Jason-3JPSS-2
NASA:SMAPOCO-2Venture EV-1
NASA/NOAA:TSISCERES FM6JPSS-1
NASA:NPPGloryAquariusGPMLDCM
NASA/NOAA:GOES-R/S
4 6 6 1310
16
Development of Level 1 Science Requirements
Support development of preliminary mission concepts
Support the assessment of Technical Readiness Levels
Identify potential partnerships
Mission Requirements for Pre-Phase A
Headquarters Approve a Formulation Authorization Document Develop DRAFT Level 1 Requirements Conduct Acquisition Strategy Planning MeetingTechnical Activities: Develop and document preliminary mission concepts Conduct internal Reviews Conduct Mission Concept Review Project Planning,
Costing and Scheduling Develop and document a DRAFT Integrated
Baseline, including:High level WBSAssessment of Technology Readiness LevelsAssessment of Infrastructure and Workforce
needs Identification of potential partnerships Identification of conceptual acquisition strategies
for proposed major procurementsKDP Readiness Obtain KDP A Readiness products Approval through the governing PMC
Areas for Mission Science Team
Scope of Major Pre-Phase A Activities:
Initiate assessments of potential applied science returns
Caucus community and partner input
Support cost benefit analyses for possible requirements modifications to enable critical applications
Areas for Applied Science Community
17
Concur with Level 1 Science Requirements
Support development of preliminary system-level requirements
Support development of mission baseline concept
Support Development of preliminary mission operation concept
Mission Requirements for Phase A
Areas for the Mission Science Team:
Scope of Major Phase A Activities:
Headquarters Establish Baseline Level 1 Requirements Conduct Acquisition Strategy Meeting Initiate Interagency and International AgreementsTechnical Activities: Develop preliminary system level requirements Develop/document Baseline Mission Concept Develop preliminary mission operations concept Initiate technology developments Develop initial orbital debris assessment Conduct System Requirements Review Conduct Mission Definition ReviewProject Planning, Costing and Scheduling: Prepare a preliminary Project Plan Conduct required Integrated Baseline Reviews Develop/document preliminary Integrated Baseline Identify Export Controlled technical dataKDP Readiness: Obtain KDP B Readiness products Approval through the governing PMC
Refine applications feasibility studies
Participate in science team analysis of refined level 1 requirements
Support focused applications workshop
Areas for Applied Science Community:
18
Existing & Future NASA Missions
NASA Flight Program Summary
20
NASA Near Term Mission Implementation We are working to develop a Program, not just fly individual
missions, and are flying 1-2 missions every year well into the next decade
2010: Glory ($450M)2011: Aquarius & NPP ($1,300M)2012: LDCM ($950M)2013: GPM ($1,000M)
Venture Mission Class calls – 2009, 2011, 2013, …Venture Instrument calls – 2011, 2012, 2013, …
2013: OCO-2 ($330M)2014: SMAP & SAGE III ($900M)2015: ICESat-2 ($750M)2016: GRACE FO ($375M)2017: DESDynI, CLARREO-1 & EV-2
($2,300M)2019: PACE ($900M)2020: CLARREO-2, ASCENDS & SWOT
($1,300M)
Complete the foundational
missions as planned
Conduct a series of competitive selections
Complete the DS 1st Tier missions by 2017, and move out with DS 2nd Tier and Climate Missions
21
Conclusion
The NASA flight program invests ~$1B+/year in its flight missions Satellite development, operation of missions, EOSDIS and other
DACs, competed mission science teams But our missions will always be focused on primary science,
but are capable of returning so much more It becomes a question of
We are looking for ways to redirect or refocus some small part of our design activities to ensure we will retain as much capability as we can, knowing what the communities want
We also are working with our partners to leverage their capabilities
Requirements vs. Capabilities
22
How is NASA following through?
At the individual mission level we are: Holding mission specific applications workshops Adding partners to our Science Definition and science teams Adding specific applications requirements to the Level 1 mission
performance requirements
At the Program level we are: Conducting cross disciplinary applications workshops Encouraging greater coupling between airborne science, EV
activities, R&A campaigns and applied sciences
At the Agency level we are: Developing MOUs between Agencies to foster collaboration Supporting GEO, GEOSS, CEOS and related international
coordination activities on data standards