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