Transcript Application of management and systems engineering to

Application of management and
systems engineering to student
projects
The example of the Auburn
University Student Space
Program
Outline
1. What is the Auburn University Student
Space Program (AUSSP)?
2. Lessons learned after 5 years
3. Corrective steps taken and preliminary
results
What is AUSSP?
• Member of the National Space Grant Student
Satellite Program
• Involves about 35 undergraduate students
any time in three-five teams
–
–
–
–
–
Auburn High-Altitude Balloonning (AHAB) team
AubieSat-I (CubeSat) team
AubieSat-II (NanoSat) team
Mars team
Management team
National Space Grant Student
Satellite Program
Crawl – Walk – Run – Fly
From model rockets to Mars
http://ssp.arizona.edu/sgsatellites
“CRAWL”
BalloonSat Programs
CanSat Programs
“WALK”
Sounding Rocket Programs
CubeSat Programs
“RUN”
Nanosat Programs
Arizona State University
ASUSat 1
Colorado Space Grant’s Citizen Explorer 1
Colorado, Arizona, and New
Mexico: Three-Corner Sat
“FLY”
To the Moon and Mars
External support & opportunities to get involved…
Some Suggested activities:
Science analysis
Software tools for data storage, handling, access
Project Management
Systems Engineering
Mission Operations
Spacecraft subsystems
Design, build, test, calibration, operations, performance maintenance
Communications, Power
Structures, Mechanisms, Thermal Science, Instruments
Attitude, orbit
Aerial mobility (Flyers), Surface Mobility (Rovers)
Prototyping/developing applicable technologies
Public Information
K-12 programs (ed. Modules, teacher training, etc.)
Why Student Projects?
• Aging Workforce
• Inspire & Retain
– Pipeline issue
– Attract and keep best students in STEM
• Active learning
• Job training: learning process
The AHAB Program
• Crawl level
• Freshmen and Sophomores
• Class: Physics of the World Around Us
(3 Credits)
• Launch payloads to the edge of space
(altitude range 80,000 - 100,000 feet)
• Max weight: 16 lbs
The AHAB Program
GOALS
• Reliable launcher
• Importance of control: cut-down system
• Shielding
• Outreach program for K-12
• Science experiments
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Troubleshooting!
<= Mooring
AS-I CubeSat
• Walk level
• Juniors and Seniors
• Class: Physics of the World Around Us (3
Credits)
• Use COTS
• Science mission being defined
• Mass ≤ 1-kg; Cube of 10-cm sides
AS-I CubeSat
GOALS
• Students develop technical as well as
systems engineering and management skills
designing, building, testing and operating a
CubeSat
• Put first AU satellite in LEO
• AS-I performs successfully in space
• Develop a steady student satellite capability
at AU
AS-II NanoSat
•
•
•
•
•
Run level
Exceptional Juniors and Seniors
Potential students are working on AS-I
Mass ≤ 50-kg; Max linear dimension: 45-cm
Submit proposal to AFOSR: deadline for
submission: 15 October
• Radiation mitigation experiment
Mars Student Activities
• Fly level
• Magnetic Investigation of Mars by Interacting
Consortia (MIMIC)
– Work with JPL and 10 SG Consortia
– AUSSP in charge of science and instruments for the mission
– Measuring the remnant magnetic field of Mars => loss of
atmosphere => loss of liquid surface water => impact on
potential life
– Mission abandoned: NASA launcher scrapped
– AU: six participating students, two spent Summer 04 at JPL
Mars Student Activities
• AU students @ JPL during summer
–
–
–
–
Luther Richardson - 2003
Ben Spratling and Eric Massey - 2004
Jason Stewart - 2005
Eric Grimes - 2006
• INSPIRATION in 2006: a robotic weather
station on surface of Mars (11 SG students: 2
from Alabama)
• Eric Grimes in charge of instruments
Management Team
• Students from non-technical majors: finance,
business, accounting, nutrition, journalism,
history, etc.
• No class credit in physics
• Student Program Manager
• Positions: CFO, HRO, PRO, ITO
• Meetings twice a week
• Support program and tech teams
Management Team
• Program support
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Budget, purchasing, accounting
Fund raising & visibility on campus and beyond
Recruitment
Contact information
Class rolls/participation
Wiki and website
Certificates and awards
Longitudinal tracking
Socials
SEDS
Program history
• Program started in Fall 2001
• Immediately started both a CubeSat
and a Ballooning program
• First balloon launch with recovery in
Nov. 2001
• Added a Mars mission in Fall 2003
• Added a NanoSat project in 2006
Program evaluation - Pros
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Over 100 students participated
Five students to JPL Summer Programs
One student at least with a NASA job
Two students presently “co-oping” with NASA
Six balloon launches
A CubeSat partially designed and the structure built
Tested CubeSat ejection from P-Pod in C-9
Four HS experiments ready for balloon flight
Learned from a large number of mistakes
Program evaluation - Cons
• Only six balloon flights of which four
were not found the day of launch
• No final design yet of AS-I after five
years
• Non-productive AHAB teams in 2005:
one year without a launch
• Year wasted with insufficient students
for AS-I in Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
Analysis
• We could not make a purely student-led
program work
• Need to teach and implement process:
– Management
– Systems Engineering
• We were not successful in getting
enough students to commit
• Lack of support of engineering over
years
Lessons learned - 1
• Faculty mentor
–
–
–
–
–
Used to work through student team manager
Now directly involved in all activities
Sets the tone right from the beginning
Runs team activities as a laboratory
Is now seen as the captain of the boat
• Student manager
– Used to run the labs
– Now helps mentor manage the lab meetings, learns
management and takes on increasing responsibilities with
time
• Student systems engineer
– Learns skills form mentor and experts in and outside labs
Lessons learned - 2
• Process
– Used to be pointed out on an as needed basis
– “Building fever” kills process and produces failure
– Process now taught to - and immediately applied
by -the whole team in the first weeks of the
semester
• Recruitment
–
–
–
–
High turn-over rates
Learning curve
Need to recruit top students
Recruitment strategy that works
Lesson learned - 3
• Student commitment
– Strong mentor leadership => students feel more
secure
– Responsibility matrix signed
– Make sure students have a job they can do and
like to do
– Certificates
– Summer jobs expanded
– Participation in conferences
– NASA and AE industry contacts for jobs
Lessons learned - 4
• Student participation
– Participate in project objectives, requirements and
tasks definition: take ownership of project
– Each student has a responsibility matrix - no more
watching the few gung-ho students work and
getting disconnected
• Documentation
– No lab exit before activities are documented
– Last week of semester is documentation week
– Documentation is significant part of grade
Learning Management - 1
• Each semester’s work is defined as a project
• Students are presented the status of the
system they are to work on
• The mentor has defined the vision, mission, a
few broad goals, milestones and deliverables
for the semester
• The students having learned the basics of the
system are ready to work out the objectives
for each goal
Learning Management - 2
• The students work out:
– The objectives for each goal
– The system’s operational requirements
– The subsystems’ requirements
– The tasks to be performed based on the
objectives and requirements
• The tasks are organized as a Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS)
Learning Management - 3
• The WBS includes duration of tasks
• A network diagram reveals the order in which
tasks are to be accomplished
• The critical path is identified
• A Gantt Chart represents the schedule
• Students do an inventory of materials
• Students make a list of needed tools and
materials
• Students are now ready to start building
Learning Management - 4
• Each lab session starts with
– A quick status of project
– A look at the Gantt Chart
• A comparison of the two is made and
corrective action is defined
• The goals of the session are set
• Lab work proceeds: design and/or building is
done, tests are performed
• Results are documented before leaving the
lab
Important ingredients
• Discipline
• Flexibility
• Reviews
Systems Engineering - 1
• Plans and guides the engineering effort
• Focuses on system as a whole
• Bridges traditional engineering
disciplines
• Necessary due to specialization and
complexity of modern systems
Systems Engineering - 2
• Hierarchical elements of a system:
– Mission Architecture => Balloon, Rigging, Tracking
Box, Payload, Launch Team, Ground Station,
Tracking Teams, Path Determination, Outreach
– System => Tracking Box
– Subsystems => Structure & Rigging, Primary
Tracking, Secondary Tracking, Power, Cut-Down
– Components => Transceivers, GPS, TNC, CutDown Board
– Parts => batteries, cables
System Life Cycle
System functional
specifications
Operational
deficiencies
Concept
Development
Technical
opportunities
Production
specifications
Engineering
Development
Defined system
concept
Operation & maintenance
documentation
Post
Development
Production system
Installed operation
system
Source: Systems Engineering, Principles and Practice, Alexander Kossiakoff and
William N. Sweet, Wiley-Interscience 2003
Systems Engineering Method over
Life Cycle
PHASE
St ep
Needs
Analysis
Concept
Exploration
Concept
Definition
A dvanced
Development
Engineering
Design
Integration
& Evaluation
Requirements
Analysis
A nalyze needs
A nalyze
operational
requirements
A nalyze
performance
requirements
A nalyze
functional
requirements
A nalyze des ig n
requirements
A nalyze
requirements
Functional
Definition
Define S ystem
Functions
Define
s ubsystem
functions
Define
component
functions
Define
s ubcomponent
functions
Define part
functions
Define
functional
tests
Physical
Definitions
Vis ualize
s ubsysems,
technology
Vis ualize
components,
arc hitectures
Select
components,
arc hitectures
S pecify
component
c onstruction
S pecify
s ubcomponent
c onstruction
S pecify test
equipment
Design
Validation
V alidate
needs ,
feasibility
V alidate
performance
requirements
S imulate,
validate sys tem
effec tivene ss
Test critic al
s ubsystems
V alidate
component
c onstruction
Test &
evaluate
system
Source: Systems Engineering, Principles and Practice, Alexander Kossiakoff and
William N. Sweet, Wiley-Interscience 2003
Results - 1
• Started August 24
• Extraordinary difference from past
– Student participation
– Eagerness to work
– Confidence
– Learning
– Two students spent 7 hours doing
inventory!
Results - 2
• In three weeks, both Balloon and CubeSat
have:
– Defined semester objectives
– Worked out requirements: mission, system,
subsystem
– Developed their WBS at work session level
– Established a schedule
– Established status of system
– Done a full inventory
– Started work on subsystems
– Ordered components
Conclusions
Some requirements for a successful student program
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Full faculty involvement with whole team
Full student participation in project and work definitions
Clearly defined process
Students learning and applying management and systems
engineering principles, tools and techniques
Each student has responsibilities and work load well defined
Fast track tech skills development
Technical expertise provided
Develop camaraderie between team members