prof. olivier de weck [email protected] [email protected] mit department of aeronautics and astronautics...

Prof. Olivier de [email protected]

MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics(RAMSES Principal Investigator)

Joe C. [email protected] Aurora Flight Sciences Inc.(RAMSES Project Manager)

Abe [email protected]

MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics(Graduate Research Assistant)

End of NASA STTR NNC07AB25C Phase 2 System DemonstrationEnd of NASA STTR NNC07AB25C Phase 2 System Demonstration

NASA Johnson Space CenterAugust 14, 2009

RAMSES: Rule-Based Asset Management for Space Exploration Systems:

Automatic IMS Self-Reporting

2

The Team

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology– Olivier de Weck, Ph.D., Associate Professor (RAMSES PI)– Abe Grindle, Graduate Student, AA and TPP– Sydney Do, Graduate Student AA– Howard Yue, Graduate Student AA

• Aurora Flight Sciences Inc.– Joe Parrish, VP (RAMSES PM)– James Francis, Software Engineer– Joe Zapetis, Software Engineer– Joanne Vining, Senior Technician

• NASA– Nathan Sovik, NASA SSC Stennis, COTR (Phase 1)– Ray Bryant , NASA SSC Stennis , COTR (Phase 2)– Sarah Shull, NASA JSC DO5

3

Agenda

• Motivation for Real-Time Automated Asset Management

• Overview of RAMSES STTR Phase 1/2 Project– Project Heritage

– High-Level System Architecture

– Smart Container (CTB)

– Location-based Asset Tracking Software (RAILS v2)

– Microgravity Testing Results

– Cost-Benefit Analysis

• RAMSES Demo (in Lunar Habitat Mockup)

• Discussion and Suggestions for Phase 3

4

Motivation for Real-Time Automated Asset Management

5

Nested Complexity• Pocket• Container• Carrier• Module• Segment• Compartment• Element• Pallet• Assembly• Facility*• Node• Vehicle

• Item• Drawer• Kit• Locker• Unit• Rack• Lab• Platform• MPLM• Payload Bay• Fairing

• Component• Subsystem

• System • SRU• LRU• ORU• CTB• M-01• M-02• M-03

*In-Space Facility (e.g., the European Technology

Exposure Facility (EuTEF)

M02 Bags

SupplyItems

MPLMRacks

MPLMCargo

Integration

MPLMIn Shuttle

Need to track itemsacross dynamic

parent-child relationships

Evans W., de Weck O., Laufer D., Shull S., “Logistics Lessons Learned in NASA Space Flight”, NASA/TP-2006-214203, May 2006

6

Current ISS Inventory Architecture

• Barcodes

• CTBs (Cargo Transfer Bags) and other bags/kits

– 1/2, Standard, Double, Triple

– Concentration of Inventory Transactions

• IMS (Inventory Management System)– Copies in Houston, Moscow, Baikanour, and ISS

– Delta files

• ISO (Integration Stowage Officer)– Mission Control; assist crew with IMS

– Write stowage notes for all procedures

7

Inventory Tracking on ISS

Bar Code R eader

Multiple SSC/NGL

Clients

SSC/NGL File Server

DB

Communication occurs via Radio Frequency (RF) and is relayed through the RF Access Point located in the LAB

OCA Up

OCA Dow n

SSC/NGL Client

OCA Router

Manual bar-codebased system

Relatively accurate system (~ 3% lost)

Requires substantialmanual labor (>20min/day/astronaut)

RSA/NASAInventoryManagementSystem (IMS)

8

ISS Lessons Learned

International Space Station Multilateral Coordination BoardConsolidated Lessons Learned For Exploration, report issued July 22, 2009

10-Lesson: Micromanage Consumables

Resupply, logistics and onboard stowage have proven to be critical issues for the ISS. Out of necessity, the program carefully re-evaluated the usage rates for critical consumables and found innovative ways to reduce resupply requirements. Micromanagement of consumables was found to be essential to ensure adequate supply inventories. Reliability and maintenance strategies are critical.

Application to Exploration: Consumables will be even more critical for extended lunar or Mars expeditions because of the more limited resupply opportunities. Micromanagement of consumables and inventory will be critical and should be thoroughly addressed during the systems design phase.

9

ISS Lessons Learned

NASA ISS Lessons Learned – Logistics, Resupply, and Stowage

Based on the ISS experience, careful management of consumables and inventory will be critical and should be thoroughly addressed during the systems design phase. The Exploration Programs should utilize technologies that were not readily available at the beginning of the ISS Program to help minimize resupply requirements and track inventory. For example, Radio-Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) might help to simplify inventory tracking.

International Space Station Multilateral Coordination BoardConsolidated Lessons Learned For Exploration, report issued July 22, 2009

10

Functions of a State-of-the-Art IMS

• Automated inventory tracking and management

• Automated mass and C.G. calculations for vehicle management before launch and during flight operations

• Automatic reports of % full levels (by mass or volume) by module/vehicle/node for precise stowage planning

• Alerts when critical consumables are about to run low (can establish dynamic warning thresholds)

• Alerts when incompatible/hazardous items are stored together or in the wrong place

• Save temperature/pressure history with the item

• Real time assistance in searching for items

• …

11

Implications of Automated ISS Inventory Process

@ ISS Assembly Complete: • 600 Cargo Transfer Bags

(CTBs) on-orbit• 730 Crew Hours / Year spent

updating IMS ~ 4 ½ person-months (40 hrs/wk)

12

RAMSES Project Heritage

13

MIT Space Logistics Planning & Analysis

MIT and Aurora Flight Sciences (formerly Payload Systems Inc.) have been collaborating on a series of projects relating to space logistics and automated inventory tracking/management

•Interplanetary Supply Chain Management & Logistics Analysis (ISCM&LA)

– Funded through NASA Exploration Systems technology BAA 2005-2007, $4M over 2 years

– Multi-faceted project, resulting in SpaceNet software for LEO/Lunar/Mars supply chain modeling and analysis

•Haughton-Mars Research Station Expedition 2005– Field campaign, applying principles from SpaceNet– RFID-based portals enabled tracking of vehicular traffic in/out of base

camp; personnel and equipment in/out of habitat and lab areas

•Rule-Based Analytic Asset Management for Space Exploration Systems (RAMSES)

– STTR Phase 1 and 2, from NASA Stennis Space Center 2006-2009– Focus on hardware-agnostic architecture for tracking diverse assets on

ground and in space– Several generations of smart containers

Smart CTB Prototype

Haughton-Mars Research Station

14

Introduction to SpaceNet

• SpaceNet is an interplanetary supply chain modeling and simulation tool

• Goal: Support short and long-term architecture and operational decisions such as:

– What effect will vehicle (element) design decisions have on future NASA operations and lifecycle costs?

– Are in-space refueling and ISRU helpful in improving performance?

– Is it better to have cargo vehicles that carry small re-supply loads or a few large pre-deploy or resupply flights?

• Diverse user base– Mission/system architects– Mission planners and logisticians– Operations personnel– Etc…

In-Space Refueling

Staging Location

15

Interplanetary Supply Chain Management and Logistics

Architectures15

SpaceNet – Network View

SpaceNet 1.3

16

SpaceNet – Manifest View

17

RFID at the Haughton-Mars Project Research Station

18

HMP Expedition 2005: Objectives

1. Inventory classes of supply on base• Analyze analogy to lunar/Mars base

2. Model HMP supply chain• Quantitative transportation network model

3. Test and evaluate RFID technology• Field experiments during normal HMP operations• Test autonomous tracking of supplies, vehicles,

people

4. Study EVA logistics requirements1. Short traverses and overnight stays

19 19

HMP: Inventory

Comparison by Supply Class(Full Data Set)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Propellants and Fuels

2. Crew Provisions

3. Crew Operations

4. Maintenance and Upkeep

5. Stowage and Restraint

6. Exploration and Research

7. Waste and Waste Disposal

8. Habitation and Infrastructure

9. Transportation and Carriers

10. Miscellaneous

Thousands

Total [kg]

Lunar Long Lunar Short .HMP Est HMP Actuals

• Inventoried 2300 items (20,717 kg)

• Developed inventory procedures

• Validated supply classes• Maintained inventory over

time (for use next season)

4153

2934

470

286

17617235471022

9305

102

1. Propellants and Fuels 2. Crew Provisions 3. Crew Operations

4. Maintenance and Upkeep 5. Stowage and Restraint 6. Exploration and Research

7. Waste and Waste Disposal 8. Habitation and Infrastructure 9. Transportation and Carriers

10. Miscellaneous

Total Mass Inventoried [kg]Goals: Understand, Categorize Supplies on Base

- Classification of inventory

- Quantify inventory (total imported mass)

- Compare with prediction for a lunar base

- What would it take to ‘create’ an HMP-like base?

20 20

HMP: Transportation Analysis

1.O

3. R5. H

6. F

6. F

6. F

Normal Trans.

0. Dep. Point for Each Team1. Ottawa

2. Edmonton3. Resolute

4. Moffet USMC St.5. HMP Base6. HMP Field

7. Cambridge Bay Iqaluit

Yellowknife

4. M

2. E

0.D 0.D

0. D

7. C

7. Y

7. I

Emergency Trans.

Cumulative Cargo Flow HMP 2005

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 19 21 23 25 27

Flight Number (according to log)

Car

go

/Cre

w M

ass

[lb

s]

cum in

cum out

cum at HMP

Cargo Mass Flow

Transportation Network Analysis for HMP• Mass inflow per season ~ 20 mt• Analysis highlights room for improvement:

– Plan for reverse logistics– Reduce asymmetric flight usage– Smooth personnel profile

• “Robustness” more important than optimality– due to weather, emergencies, aircraft availability

Number of People Staying in Devon

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Days from 8 July

# o

f Peo

ple

30-Jun

10-Jul

21-Jul

31-Jul

7-Aug

BOXCAR

Personnel Profile

21 21

HMP: Agent & Asset Tracking (RFID)

Goal: “Smart Base” for Micro-Logistics– Technology demonstrations– Observation/Insight for further implementation

Selected Conclusions– RFID has potential for remote bases

• dramatically improve asset management• reduce crew time spent in inventory• increase ground knowledge of base requirements

– Technical hurdles• reliability, interference, packaging

– STTR to further investigate

Camp Activity 07/17 to 07/19

020406080

100120140160

Time of DayN

um

be

r o

f T

rig

ge

rs

Asset FlowMean Time

0

20

40

60

80100

120

140

160

180

200

Exp 20-4 Exp 10-4 Exp 10-2

Seco

nd

s

Bar Code

RFIDFormal Experiments ATV Tracking

22

Overview of RAMSES Phase 1/2 STTR Project

23

RAMSES Project Overview

• NASA STTR Phase 2 (Research Institution partner: MIT)– Contract number NNS07AB25C (NASA Stennis Space Center)

• Objective: Provide asset tracking and management for all of NASA’s assets– Document in office at NASA center…supply item on International Space Station…

pressurized rover on surface of Moon/Mars

• Hierarchical to accommodate diverse styles of assets– Room level…outdoors…orbits and planetary surfaces

• Device-agnostic to accommodate diverse styles on locating/tracking systems– RFID…WiFi…Cellular…GPS

• Emphasis on open source software– E.g., Google Maps API

• Strong potential for terrestrial applications– Military theater operations

– Humanitarian aid

– Entertainment industry

– Consumer products

24

NASA Applications

R R

LN

RR

LN

Real-Time Data Capture Platform

Integrate real-time RFID; Barcode; GPS;

LN

R

RFID

Local Node

RFID Reader

RFID Tag

R R

LN

RFID

Planetary SurfaceIn-SpaceEarth Ground

GroundProcessing

Spaceport

Launch vehicle

InterplanetaryNetworkConnection

CEV LunarBase Mars

RFID

RFID

RFID

Applications

RFID

ISS

TDRSS

Internet

RFID

25

RAMSES Architecture

RelationalDatabase

WebBrowser(RAILS)

OtherDevices

Container

Tracking

Indoor Tracking

Outdoor Tracking Rule-BasedAnalytics

Messaging System

Physical Architecture Informational Architecture

raw data (e.g. triggers)

interrogate

UserUser

transactions

events

802.11

systemstate

RelationalDatabase

Google Maps

externalinformation

TrackedTrackedItemsItems

Email, SMS

26

RAILS

• RDF-based Asset Information and Location Software– Web-based real-time interface

Container Inventory

Facility-level Tracking

Item Locator

Supported Web Browsers: Internet Explorer, Firefox

27

Smart Container Concept

802.11

Prototype:Instrumented

CTB

RFIDAntennas

(1-4)

5V DCBattery (30Ah)

RFIDReader (915 MHz)

RF opaque“liner”

wireless router

wireless radio

802.11

database

container 1 ….

item x 8:41am

itemx

passivetag

MySQL Relationaldatabase

wwwinterface

8:41a.m.

PC/laptop

switch

wireles

s

radio

802.

11

28

Smart Container Evolution

Generation 1Cooler

Generation 2Hard Container

Generation 3Soft Bag

Generation 4CTB Retrofit Kit

Proof-of-concept for RF-insulated container and automated/wireless inventory function

Hard-case with integrated display, modular electronics

CTB proxy with RF-shielding insert, integrated electronics and antennae

CTB-specific prototype, ready to transition to flight implementation

29

Testing Results (2007 MIT Undergraduate Design Project)

• 6 Test Subjects– 3 male, 3 female

• 24 Experiments each• Time Savings: RFID

versus Bar-coding can be > factor of 2 time savings– Benefit increases as

more items have to be managed in the system

• Accuracy: Above 95% is feasible if:– use 3 RFID antennas– ~20 items– 2 tags per item helps

Mean Time vs No. of Items

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Number of Items

Time (sec)

Barcode

RFID

6 15 24 33

Mean Accuracy vs No. of Items

75

80

85

90

95

100

No. of Items

% Accuracy

6 15 24 33

Source: Teresa Pontillo, Alice Fan, 16.622 Final Report, MIT

30

Microgravity Testing of Smart CTB

August 11-12, 2009

Play MovieClip X48p test

condition

31

Motivation for Microgravity Testing

• Hypothesis that microgravity environment could actually improve RFID tag read accuracy– Tags in free-float will move around in container and present

themselves in randomized orientations to antennae • Vice laying on top of each other in bottom of container

• MIT and Aurora proposed parabolic flight experiment to NASA FAST program, and were approved for two sorties– Sorties took place earlier this week, using Zero-G Corp. B-

727 from Ellington Field– Collected data during 68 parabolas, with emphasis on

measuring read rates for different numbers and types of tagged materials and different tags

RAMSES System 0-g Test FlightsTEST PLAN – FAST Program

August 10-14, 2009

vv

W30 ___

W30 ___

W24 ___

W24 ___

W18 ___

W12 ___

W6 ___ M6 ___

M12 ___

M18 ___

M30 ___

M30 ___

M24 ___

M24 ___

X30 ___

X30 ___

X24 ___

X24 ___

T30 ___

T30 ___

T24 ___

T24 ___

W=Water Bottles M=Metal Cans T=Tissues X=miXed Items

T18 ___

T12 ___

T6 ___ X6 ___

X12 ___

X18 ___

X36 ___

X42 ___

X48 ___

X54 ___

X60 ___Parabolas 1-7 Parabolas 8-14 Parabolas 16-22

Parabolas 23-34

0g 0g1.8g 1.8g

vv

Parabola 15

MIT-Aurora Flight Sciences

33

Flight Day One Results with Alien Tags

34

Results of Microgravity Testing

• Flight data collected for three materials (water, metal, paper) and two types of tags (Alien, Omni-D)

• Baseline data collected in 1-G for comparison

• For all materials and tags, microgravity read rates were equal or better than those from 1-G

• From a performance standpoint, we believe that there are no fundamental reasons why RFID in 0-G would be inferior to 1-G

• Caveats:– Small statistical samples for 0-G cases– Tag read rates are still not perfect – but we generally saw

90-100% read rates during 20 seconds of reader integration

35

Cost-Benefit Analysis

36

Net Present Value Analysis

• Are the benefits of this RFID application worth the costs? How likely is this system to result in net present value?

• Key Equation:

B = Benefits

C = Costs

r = Discount Rate (Set to 7%, per OMB guidelines [1])N = Number of Years of Study (FY 2009 – FY 2016, N=8)

N

ii

ii

r

CBNPV

1 1

37

Two Implementation Strategies Modeled

• “Phase-In” Implementation

– Existing CTBs currently on Station are gradually replaced by new, “wired” CTBs according to the existing launch schedule

– Contents transferred to new bags by Crew; most-used bags first

– CTB launch rate perhaps too low, especially post-Shuttle Retirement

• Modification Kits Implementation

– Instead of launching new CTBs, just launch RAMSES hardware in mod-kits that the Crew can install on-orbit to retrofit existing CTBs

– Assumes all mod-kits launched & installed in FY 2009

38

Costs Considered

• NASA Engineer Time for:

– Flight Certification & Approval

– Operational Support & Maintenance

• Cost for Vendor to Modify CTBs or Cost to Build Mod-Kits

• Cost of RFID Hardware

• “Opportunity Cost” of:

– Launching the System Mass

– Launching the System Volume

– Crew Time to Transfer Items to Wired Bags or Install Mod Kits

39

Benefits Considered

• Value of Crew Time Saved on:– Bi-annual Inventory Audits– Missing Item Searches– Daily Inventory Management System Updates

• Reduced workload for JSC Inventory Stowage Officers (ISOs)– Less need to assist Crew with Inventory updates/searches

• Only Partial Savings realized, per “System Effectiveness” (β) parameter:

β = (% of Inventory Transactions ‘Automate-able’) x (System Accuracy)

40

Quantifying Value (“Opportunity Cost”) of Cargo Launch Volume & Mass

• Value of Cargo Launch Volume =[Annual Net Variable Recurring Cost (all Cargo Missions)]

[Annual Net Dry Cargo Launch Volume Available (habitable)]

= ~ $20.3 million / m^3 (‘09-’10), ~ $31.6 million / m^3 (‘10-’16)

• Value of Cargo Launch Mass =[Annual Net Variable Recurring Cost (all Cargo Missions)]

[Annual Net Cargo Launch Mass Available]

= ~ $25,500 / lb (‘09-’10), ~ $35,700 / lb (‘10-’16)

41

Quantifying Value of On-Orbit Crew Time

• Value of 1 Hour of On-Orbit Crew Time =

[Average Annual ISS Ops Budget (Common Systems Operations Cost)]

[# Crew] x [# “Active” Hours per day / Crew Member] x [365 days/yr]

= ~ $185K / hr (’09) # Crew = 3, Each active 16 hrs/day

= ~ $ 100K / hr (’10-’16) # Crew = 6, Each active 16 hrs/day

• Notes:– Common Systems Operations (CSO) Cost is defined as “the cost to operate the ISS”, including “the

cost to transport crew and common supplies” and “ground operations costs” [9]

– International Partners’ negotiated shares of CSO Costs [10]:

NASA = 76.6%; JAXA = 12.8%; ESA = 8.3%; CSA = 2.3% || RSA = Russian Segment & Crew Ops Costs

42

Key Variables

• 7 “High-Impact”, Uncertain Variables identified via Sensitivity Analysis of Discrete Calculation results (“best-available” input values):

– Average ISS Ops Budget

– # of “Active” Crew Hours

– % of IMS Transactions that could be Automated

– System Accuracy

– Volume Required for 1 RAMSES Unit

– “Opportunity Cost” of Cargo Launch Volume

– # of CTBs that are to be “Wired”

• All but “# of CTBs” are randomly varied within reasonable ranges for probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations; “# of CTBs” is varied between Monte Carlo simulations

Value of Crew Time

“System Effectiveness”

“Cost” of System Volume

43

Results

• NPV = +$14.8 Million for Discrete Calculation, Mod-Kit Scenario

• NPV = -$ 63.0 Million for Discrete Calculation, Phase-In Scenario

• Monte Carlo general results:

– Mod-Kit Scenario performs better than gradual Phase-In

– Simulations w/ Normally-Distributed Variables perform slightly better than those w/ Uniformly-Distributed Variables

– Both scenarios less than 50% likely to result in NPV > 0 if inventory transactions are evenly distributed among all CTBs

– If transactions are somewhat concentrated in subset of CTBs, and RAMSES installation can be targeted to those CTBs, both scenarios are likely (to very likely) to result in NPV > 0. Magnitude and Likelihood of NPV vary with degree of transaction concentration.

44

Results

Mean NPV Mean NPV Mean NPV Mean NPV Mean NPVNPV Std. Dev. NPV Std. Dev. NPV Std. Dev. NPV Std. Dev. NPV Std. Dev.

(6,028,603.41)$ 12,484,645.27$ 49,435,199.17$ 103,185,422.47$ x19,313,461.96$ 23,066,435.14$ 30,550,819.73$ 44,754,456.13$ x

x (6,035,666.20)$ 29,780,636.00$ 85,406,626.04$ xx 25,918,469.55$ 32,852,633.72$ 46,558,196.89$ xx x (7,233,783.26)$ 46,835,438.82$ xx x 38,902,427.71$ 48,677,956.52$ xx x x x (13,223,978.27)$ x x x x 77,414,934.03$

Launch Mod Kits (Best Ops Guess); Normally-Distributed Simulations

98%

84%

43%

41% 82%

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

% NPV > 0

25%

33%

50%

100%

Actual % CTBs

Wired

37% 71% 95% 100%

25% 33% 50% 75% 100%% NPV

> 0% NPV

> 0% NPV

> 0% NPV

> 0

Effective % of CTBs Wired (As determined by concentration of transactions)

43%

• Modification Kits Scenario: Normally-Distributed Variables

Grindle September 9, 2008

Aurora Flight Sciences / Payload Systems Division

If 50% of all transactions occur in 25% of the total CTBs: • 95% probability of NPV > 0• Mean NPV = $49.4 Million

• NPV Std. Dev. = $30.6 Million

If 75% of all transactions occur in 50% of the total CTBs: • 84% probability of NPV > 0• Mean NPV = $46.8 Million


If the transactions are evenly distributed throughout all CTBs and we wire 100% of the total CTBs:

• 43% probability of NPV > 0• Mean NPV = $(13.2) Million


45

Conclusions

• If inventory transactions are concentrated in some subset of CTBs, and part or all of that subset can be targeted for RAMSES installation, this application of RAMSES is quite likely to result in positive Net Present Value.

– Such concentration has been reported by JSC ISOs, but not quantified. Intuitively, it makes sense - some desk drawers get almost all the use.

• Cost drivers: System Volume, Mass, & Crew Time required to install.

• Key Benefit: Saving part of 20 min/day each Crew Member spends updating IMS (total = 730 hours/yr) . System Effectiveness (β) parameter is critical.

• As with any Cost/Benefit Analysis, results are limited – can provide guidance, but not absolute truth. Assumptions and unknowns are important.

46

RAMSES Demo

47

Demo Flow

1. Login to RAILS with web browser2. Smart Container Inventory (what is in it?)

• Inventory database• Real-time updating

3. Supply Item Hierarchical Tracking (where is it moving (item)?)• Removal of item• Return item

4. Supply Item Addition5. Item Search (where can I find …?)

6. Rule-based Analytics• Low Inventory Warning• Mass Properties, Shelf Life• Supply Class Incompatibility Rule

7. Automatic Messaging (email)8. Logging out

http://projects.payload.com/RailsV2

user: ramsespassword: rfid1

Login Information

48

DiscussionSuggestions for Phase 3

49

Interest/Contact Points at NASA

• NASA Stennis Space Center– T9.02 Integrated Life-Cycle Asset Mapping,

Management, and Tracking Lead Center: SSC

• NASA Wireless & RFID Working Group– Lead Center: JSC

– Asset Management on ISS

– Lunar Surface Micro-Logistics (e.g. in Habitat)

• NASA Glenn (and NASA JSC CHeCS)– Crew Medical Supply Inventory

• NASA Astronaut Office– Greg Chamitoff

– ISS Operations Branch

50

Recommendations for Phase 3

• Establish “Permanent” Test Implementation at JSC– Bldg. 9 ISS Mockup

– Bldg. 14 Lunar Habitat Mockup

• On-Orbit DTO Demonstration in 2010-2011 timeframe with “a few” retrofitted CTBs– How many? What items?

– Integration with IMS

– Medical supply tracking

– STS-134 and E25/E26 are potential targets of opportunity

• Continue/Evolve Database and Rule-Base Development– Critical Inventory Levels with Crew Size 6

– Extended ISS Operations (2016-2020)• Possible recommendation by Augustine Commission today

Thank you!

Questions?

52

Backup Slides

53

STTR Topic RecapT9.02 Integrated Life-Cycle Asset Mapping, Management, and Tracking Lead Center: SSC To support NASA’s need for reliable and low-cost asset management in all of its programs including

Earth-based activities, robotic and human lunar exploration, and planning for later expeditions to Mars and beyond, the Earth Science Applications Directorate at Stennis Space Center seeks proposals supporting NASA’s requirements for asset management. With proper physical infrastructure and information systems, identification tags should allow any item to be tracked throughout its life cycle. When combined with Earth and lunar GIS, and related supporting documentation, any significant asset should be located, through time and space, as well as organization. Starting with programmatic requirements and design data, assets would be tracked through manufacture, testing, possible launch, use, maintenance, and eventual disposal. Innovative technology and information architectures should integrate and visually map infrastructure, assets, and associated documentation with the ability to link to program structure, budget, and workflow. …. A simple operator interface would provide “finger-tip knowledge” about the asset. …

The innovation may eventually interoperate with a holistic information system, and may not preclude other uses for a terrestrial and lunar GIS such as:

• Operational infrastructure support AM/FM (automated mapping / facilities management);• Asset and resource management, including waste disposal; • Lunar landing and facility site selection, and optimization …..other

2005/6 SBIR Solicitation

54

Commercial RFID vs NASA

• Commercial RFID Technology– pushed by Wal-Mart

– some industry leaders (Gillette)

– mainly “slap and ship”

– good for stable supply and demand situations

– items remain in their packaging throughout the supply chain

– predictable routing

– tagging at the box or pallet level, rarely below at the item level

– very cost sensitive ($/tag must be very low)

• NASA/Exploration– complex supply class

structure

– high value items

– dynamic environment, items are repackaged, moved frequently changing parent/child relationships

– need high read rates (reliability) > 95%

– routing less predictable

– extreme environments

– less cost sensitive in terms of $/tag

55

Frequency and Range

Frequency Range Tag cost Applications

Low-frequency125 - 148 KHz

3 feet $1+ Pet and ranch animal identification;car keylocks

High-frequency13.56 MHz

3 feet $0.50 library book identification;clothing identification; smart cards

Ultra-high freq915 MHz

25 feet $2+ Supply chain tracking:Box, pallet, container, trailer tracking

Microwave:2.45GHz

100 feet $25+ Highway toll collection;vehicle fleet identification

56


57


58

Flight Day Two Results with Omni Tags

59

Flight Day Two Results with Omni Tags

60

Analysis Flowchart

61

Monte Carlo Results: CDF

• Modification Kits Implementation• 100% of CTBs wired

62

Monte Carlo Results: Histogram

• Modification Kits Implementation• 100% of CTBs wired

63


Cost Per Mission (Variable Recurring Cost)

Max Cargo Capacity (kg)

Max Dry Cargo Mass (kg)

Available Dry Cargo Volume

(m^3)

Cost Per Cubic Meter of Dry Cargo Volume

Shuttle MPLM 400,000,000$ 9400 9400 31 12,903,225.81$ Progress M1 89,423,000$ 2230 1800 6.6 13,548,939.39$ ATV 500,000,000$ 7667 5500 13.8 36,231,884.06$ HTV 500,000,000$ 6000 5500 14 35,714,285.71$

Notes: - Assumed for Shuttle MPLM missions that all cargo capacity is located in MPLM.

- All “Cost Per Mission” values should be regarded as rough approximations, and do not include program costs.- Dry Cargo Volume is vehicle’s “habitable” volume; this is larger than actual dry cargo volume, but only consistent

value available

References: - Cost Per Mission [2].

- Max Cargo - Shuttle MPLM [5], Progress M1 [3], ATV [4], HTV [6]. - Max Dry Cargo Mass - Shuttle MPLM [5], Progress M1 [3], ATV [4], HTV [5].

- Available Dry Cargo Volume – Shuttle MPLM [5], Progress M1 [7], ATV [8], HTV [5].

64


65

Quantifying Value of On-Orbit Crew Time

• Sample Calculations:

– US = $2,060,200,000 from NASA FY 2009 Budget Proposal [11]– Common Systems Operations Costs = (1/.766) * US = $2,689,556,136 [10]– JAXA = (.128)*Common Systems Operations Costs = $344,263,185 [10]– ESA = (.083)*Common Systems Operations Costs =$223,233,159 [10]– CSA = (.023)*Common Systems Operations Costs = $61,859,791 [10]

• Note:

– Value of $550 million for RSA is an educated guess; no data available

ISS Ops Budget: 2009 2010-2016US 2,060,200,000$ 2,261,175,000$ RSA 550,000,000$ 550,000,000$ JAXA 344,263,185$ 377,846,475$ ESA 223,233,159$ 245,009,824$ CSA 61,859,791$ 67,894,289$ Total: 3,239,556,136$ 3,501,925,587$

66

General Inputs (Discrete Calc, Mod-Kits Implementation Scenario)

Year: 2009 2010-2016# Crew: 3 6

Avg. ISS Budget: 3,239,556,135.77$ 3,501,925,587.47$ # "Active" Crew Hours in a Day: 16 16

$ / 'Active' Crew Hr: 184,906.17$ 99,940.80$

RFID System Weight (lbs): 4 4Launch Cost ($ / lb): 25,511.96$ 35,715.01$

$ / System: 102,047.85$ 142,860.02$

Discount Rate: 7% 7%

Volume of Standard CTB (m^3): 0.053 0.053Percent of Standard CTB volume required for RFID System: 12% 12%

Volume Cost ($ / m^3): 20,272,793.47$ 31,598,719.79$ $ / System: 128,717.97$ 200,629.63$

Note:•“Launch Cost ($/lb)” and “Volume Cost ($/m^3)” both have different values for Pre- and Post-Shuttle Retirement.

For convenience, these values are listed under “2009” and “2010-2016” respectively, even though the Shuttle will not retire until the end of 2010. All calculations are performed using the correct retirement date.

67

Cost to Build & Prepare Modification Kit to Install RFID System: 3,000.00$ Cost of Hardware Components for 1 RFID System: 3,000.00$

Time Required for Astronauts to Transfer CTB Contents to new CTB (hr): 1/3Number of CTBs upgraded by On-Orbit Crew: 600

Cost of 1 NASA Engineer Person-Year (Salary + Overhead): 200,000.00$

# NASA Engineer Person-Years for Flight Certification Testing & Review: 7

# NASA Engineer Person-Years for Operational Maintenance (per year): 2

# ISOs Employed to Cover 1 Console Shift / Day, 365 Days / Yr: 12

# of CTBs On-Orbit that are to be wired: 600

First Year to Realize Benefits: 2010Final Year of ISS Operations: 2016

% On-orbit IMS Entries that could be Automated by Wired CTBs: 50%% of CTB Transactions Accurately Detected by System: 95%

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS (%) for those CTBs that are Wired: 48%

General Inputs (Discrete Calc, Mod-Kits Implementation Scenario)

68

Costs (Discrete Calc, Mod-Kits)

Name Cost ($) Per Unit Quantity Total ($) CommentCost to Build & Prepare Modification Kit to Install RFID System 3,000.00$ 600 1,800,000.00$ estimate; new bag = $3-5kRAMSES Hardware System (parts & labor) 3,000.00$ 600 1,800,000.00$ estimate; parts ~$3kNASA Engineer Time for Flight Certification testing & approval (Person-Yr) 200,000.00$ 7 1,400,000.00$ estimate; 1 FTE @ GS 12 Step 5 (Hou, TX) + overheadOpportunity Cost of additional mass launched ('09) 102,047.85$ 600 61,228,712.53$ estimate; 4lb per systemOpportunity Cost of cargo displaced due to volume of RFID systems ('09) 128,717.97$ 600 77,230,779.89$ estimate; 0.12 of std CTB volume. required per sysOpportunity Cost for On-Orbit Crew to Upgrade CTBs ('09) 61,635.39$ 600 36,981,234.43$ estimate; 1/3 crew hr per bag, all bags

TOTAL One-Time: 2009 180,440,726.84$ Spent in FY 2009; No Discount

Name Cost ($) Quantity Total ($) CommentNASA Engineer Time for RAMSES operational maintenance (Person-Yr) 200,000.00$ 2 400,000.00$ Cost = salary + overhead

% of CTBs Launched Fiscal Yr TOTAL Recurring:100% 2009 400,000.00$ Present value; No Discount (Crew = 3)100% 2010 373,831.78$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2011 349,375.49$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2012 326,519.15$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2013 305,158.08$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2014 285,194.47$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2015 266,536.89$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2016 249,099.90$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)

182,996,442.60$ Lifetime TOTAL Costs:

Total Capital CostsOne-Time (FY 2009)

Recurring Costs during Operations (Per Year)



69

Benefits (Discrete Calc, Mod-Kits)

Name Cost ($) Quantity Total ($) CommentAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Inventory Audits / yr (2009) 184,906.17$ 24 4,437,748.13$ 4 hrs/yr/crew member; source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Inventory Audits / yr (2010-2016) 99,940.80$ 24 2,398,579.17$ 4 hrs/yr/crew member; source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Missing Items Searches / yr (2009) 184,906.17$ 10 1,849,061.72$ estimate; ~10 hrs / yr source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Missing Items Searches / yr (2010-2016) 99,940.80$ 10 999,407.99$ estimate; ~10 hrs / yr source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Updating IMS (offical timeline) (2009) 184,906.17$ 365 67,490,752.83$ official NASA policy (20 min / day / crew member); 3 crewAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Updating IMS (offical timeline) (2010-2016) 99,940.80$ 730 72,956,783.07$ official NASA policy (20 min / day / crew member); 6 crewFlight Controller (ISO) Time to help crew update IMS (Person-Yr) 150,000.00$ 6 900,000.00$

estimated # of ISOs to support 1 console shift /day, 365 days / yr; assumed 1 FTE @ GS 11 Step 5 (Hou, TX) + overhead

% of CTBs Wired Fiscal Yr TOTAL Recurring:0% 2009 -$ Present value; No Discount (Crew = 3)

100% 2010 34,295,341.92$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2011 32,051,721.42$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2012 29,954,879.84$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2013 27,995,214.80$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2014 26,163,752.15$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2015 24,452,104.81$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)100% 2016 22,852,434.40$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)

ISS Ops currently projected for NASA funding through end of FY 2016; if RAMSES was installed and operational by end of FY 2010, potential valued-added &

cost-savings over ISS lifetime = 197,765,449.35$

14,769,006.75$ Lifetime Total Savings - Lifetime Total CostsNet Present Value =

Potential Value Added (Crew Time Freed) & Cost Savings Per Year

Lifetime TOTAL Savings =



70

General Inputs (Discrete Calc, Phase-In Implementation Scenario)

Year: 2009 2010-2016# Crew: 3 6

Avg. ISS Budget: 3,239,556,135.77$ 3,501,925,587.47$ # "Active" Crew Hours in a Day: 16 16

$ / 'Active' Crew Hr: 184,906.17$ 99,940.80$

RFID System Weight (lbs): 4 4Launch Cost ($ / lb): 25,511.96$ 35,715.01$

$ / System: 102,047.85$ 142,860.02$

Discount Rate: 7% 7%

Volume of Standard CTB (m^3): 0.053 0.053Percent of Standard CTB volume required for RFID System: 12% 12%

Volume Cost ($ / m^3): 20,272,793.47$ 31,598,719.79$ $ / System: 128,717.97$ 200,629.63$

Note:•“Launch Cost ($/lb)” and “Volume Cost ($/m^3)” both have different values for Pre- and Post-Shuttle Retirement.

For convenience, these values are listed under “2009” and “2010-2016” respectively, even though the Shuttle will not retire until the end of 2010. All calculations are performed using the correct retirement date.

71

General Inputs (Discrete Calc, Phase-In Implementation Scenario)

Year: 2009 2010-2016

Cost to Modify 1 CTB for RFID System (add pockets, insulation, install electronics): 3,000.00$

Cost of Hardware Components for 1 RFID System: 3,000.00$ Time Required for Astronauts to Transfer CTB Contents to new CTB (hr): 1/3

Number of CTBs Contents Transferred to Wired CTB On-Orbit: 80 520

Cost of 1 NASA Engineer Person-Year (Salary + Overhead): 200,000.00$

# NASA Engineer Person-Years for Flight Certification Testing & Review: 7

# NASA Engineer Person-Years for Operational Maintenance (per year): 2

# ISOs Employed to Cover 1 Console Shift / Day, 365 Days / Yr 6

# of CTBs On-Orbit: 600Wired CTB Launch Rate (% of Total ISS Population): 13%

First Year to Realize Benefits: 2010Final Year of ISS Operations: 2016

% On-orbit IMS Entries that could be Automated by Wired CTBs: 50%% of CTB Transactions Accurately Detected by System: 95%

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS (%) for those CTBs that are Wired: 48%

72

Costs (Discrete Calc, Phase-In)

Name Cost ($) Quantity Total ($) CommentNASA Engineer Time for Flight Certification testing & approval (Person-Yr) 200,000.00$ 7 1,400,000.00$ estimate; 1 FTE @ GS 12 Step 5 (Hou, TX) + overhead

TOTAL One-Time: 2009 1,400,000.00$ Spent in FY 2009; No Discount

Name Cost ($) Quantity Total ($) CommentModify Standard Cargo Transfer Bag for RAMSES (add pockets, insulation) 3,000.00$ 80 239,400.00$ estimate; new bag = $3-5kRAMSES Hardware System (parts & labor) 3,000.00$ 80 239,400.00$ estimate; parts ~$2kNASA Engineer Time for RAMSES operational maintenance (Person-Yr) 200,000.00$ 2 400,000.00$ cost = salary + overheadOpportunity cost of additional mass launched ('09-'10) 102,047.85$ 80 8,143,418.77$ estimate; 4lb per systemOpportunity cost of additional mass launched ('11-'16) 142,860.02$ 80 11,400,229.67$ estimate; 4lb per systemOpportunity Cost of cargo displaced due to volume of RFID systems ('09-'10) 128,717.97$ 80 10,271,693.73$ estimate; 0.12 of std CTB volume. required per sysOpportunity Cost of cargo displaced due to volume of RFID systems ('11-16) 200,629.63$ 80 16,010,244.09$ estimate; 0.12 of std CTB volume. required per sysOpportunity Cost for On-Orbit Crew to Upgrade CTBs (2009) 61,635.39$ 80 4,918,504.18$ estimate; 1/3 crew hr per bag, all bagsOpportunity Cost for On-Orbit Crew to Upgrade CTBs (2010-2016) 33,313.60$ 80 2,658,425.25$ estimate; 1/3 crew hr per bag, all bags

% of CTBs Launched Fiscal Yr TOTAL Recurring:13% 2009 24,212,416.67$ Present value; No Discount (Crew = 3)27% 2010 20,516,203.49$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)40% 2011 24,186,294.09$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)53% 2012 22,604,013.17$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)67% 2013 21,125,245.95$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)80% 2014 19,743,220.51$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)93% 2015 18,451,607.96$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)

100% 2016 8,946,391.32$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)

161,185,393.16$ Lifetime TOTAL Costs:

Total Capital CostsOne-Time (FY 2009)

Recurring Costs during Ramp-Up (Per Year)

73

Benefits (Discrete Calc, Phase-In)

Name Cost ($) Quantity Total ($) CommentAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Inventory Audits / yr (2009) 184,906.17$ 24 4,437,748.13$ 4 hrs/yr/crew member; source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Inventory Audits / yr (2010-2016) 99,940.80$ 24 2,398,579.17$ 4 hrs/yr/crew member; source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Missing Items Searches / yr (2009) 184,906.17$ 10 1,849,061.72$ estimate; ~10 hrs / yr source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Missing Items Searches / yr (2010-2016) 99,940.80$ 10 999,407.99$ estimate; ~10 hrs / yr source = Ursula StockdaleAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Updating IMS (offical timeline) (2009) 184,906.17$ 365 67,490,752.83$ official NASA policy (20 min / day / crew member); 3 crewAstronaut On-Orbit Hours for Updating IMS (offical timeline) (2010-2016) 99,940.80$ 730 72,956,783.07$ official NASA policy (20 min / day / crew member); 6 cewFlight Controller (ISO) Time to help crew update IMS (Person-Yr) 150,000.00$ 6 900,000.00$ estimated # of ISOs to support 1 console shift /day, 365 days / yr;

assumed 1 FTE @ GS 11 Step 5 (Hou, TX) + overhead

% of CTBs Wired Fiscal Yr TOTAL Recurring:0% 2009 -$ Present value; No Discount (Crew = 3)

13% 2010 4,561,280.48$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)27% 2011 8,525,757.90$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)40% 2012 11,951,997.05$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)53% 2013 14,893,454.27$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)67% 2014 17,398,895.18$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)80% 2015 19,512,779.64$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)93% 2016 21,275,616.43$ Assumes Discount Rate; (Crew = 6)

ISS Ops currently projected for NASA funding through end of FY 2016; if RAMSES was installed and operational by end of FY 2010, potential valued-added &

cost-savings over ISS lifetime =

Lifetime TOTAL Savings

98,119,780.95$

NPV = (63,065,612.21)$ Lifetime Total Savings - Lifetime Total Costs

Potential Value Added (Crew Time Freed) & Cost Savings Per Year

74

Normally-Distributed Random Variables

Lower 95% Bound

Upper 95% Bound

Mean Std Dev 2009-2010 2011-2016

Avg. Total ISS Budget: $3,100,000,000 $3,650,000,000 $ 3,375,000,000 $ 137,500,000 3,168,583,748$ 3,365,681,107$

# "Active" Crew Hours in a Day: 10 18 14 2 12% On-orbit IMS Entries that could be

Automated by Wired CTBs:30% 70% 50% 10% 45%

% of CTB Transactions Accurately Detected by System:

80% 100% 90% 5% 92%

$ / m^3 of Cargo Up-Volume: 10,000,000$ $50,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 10,000,000 35,979,362$ 28,675,797$ Percent of Standard CTB volume

required for RFID System:4% 20% 12% 4% 8%

Lower 95% Bound

Upper 95% Bound

Mean Std Dev 2009-2010 2011-2016

Avg. Total ISS Budget: $3,100,000,000 $3,650,000,000 $3,375,000,000 $137,500,000 3,188,222,430$ 3,524,480,947$ # "Active" Crew Hours in a Day: 10 18 14 2 13

% On-orbit IMS Entries that could be Automated by Wired CTBs:

30% 70% 50% 10% 48%

% of CTB Transactions Accurately Detected by System:

80% 100% 90% 5% 96%

$ / m^3 of Cargo Up-Volume: 10,000,000$ $50,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 10,000,000 39,046,734$ 41,051,962$ Percent of Standard CTB volume required

for RFID System:4% 20% 12.0% 4.0% 14%

Wired CTB Launch Rate (% of Total ISS Population):

5% 15% 10.0% 2.5% 11%

Mod-Kits

Phase-In

75

Uniformly-Distributed Random Variables

Mod-Kits

Phase-In

Lower Bound Upper Bound 2009-2010 2011-2016

Avg. Total ISS Budget: $ 3,100,000,000 $ 3,650,000,000 3,145,265,355$ 3,363,132,171$

# "Active" Crew Hours in a Day: 10 18 10

% On-orbit IMS Entries that could be Automated by Wired CTBs: 30% 70% 41%

% of CTB Transactions Accurately Detected by System: 80% 100% 97%

$ / m^3 of Cargo Up-Volume: 10,000,000$ $50,000,000 11,549,377$ 49,555,001$

Percent of Standard CTB volume required for RFID System: 4% 20% 4%

Lower Bound Upper Bound 2009-2010 2011-2016Avg. Total ISS Budget: $ 3,100,000,000 $ 3,650,000,000 3,357,339,623$ 3,490,240,955$

# "Active" Crew Hours in a Day: 10 18 13% On-orbit IMS Entries that could be Automated by Wired CTBs: 30% 70% 50%

% of CTB Transactions Accurately Detected by System: 80% 100% 85%$ / m^3 of Cargo Up-Volume: 10,000,000$ $50,000,000 15,565,849$ 43,202,514$

Percent of Standard CTB volume required for RFID System: 4% 20% 13%Wired CTB Launch Rate (% of Total ISS Population): 5% 15% 6%

76

Future Work – Cost/Benefit Analysis

• Common Systems Operations Costs

– Likely to be larger than currently calculated (baseline uses Proposed NASA FY 2009 ISS Ops Budget as reference, but this does not include launch costs)

Would increase likelihood & magnitude of NPV (increase value of Crew Time)

– Russian Ops Costs unknown; likely to be larger as well? Same impact.

• Dry Cargo Volume Capacity of Launch Vehicles

– Only “habitable volume” is consistently available; overestimates cargo space.

Would decrease likelihood & magnitude of NPV (increase cost of cargo volume)

• Benefits of Enhanced Safety and Mission Assurance are not included in this analysis

• Cost of integrating RAMSES with existing IMS not included (technical & political)

77

Contacts

Principal Investigator (MIT):

Prof. Olivier de WeckMIT Dept of Aeronautics and AstronauticsMIT Room E40-26177 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA [email protected](617) 715-5195

Project Manager (Aurora Flight Sciences):

Joe C. ParrishAurora Flight SciencesOne Broadway, 12th FloorCambridge, MA [email protected](617) 500-0248

prof. olivier de weck [email protected] [email protected] mit department of aeronautics and astronautics...

Documents

critical consumables

nasa space flight

cotr phase

iss lessons

consumables resupply

inventory tracking

space facility

micromanagement of consumables