September 2013
Space Universal Modular Architecture
(SUMO)
Setting the Environment for Industry-Consensus Standards
Bernie Collins
ODNI/AT&F
2
SUMO Agenda
Introduction
Outreach and Support: Government
Outreach and Support: Industry
Cost Savings and Other Benefits
Transition Plan
3
Space Universal MOdular Architecture (SUMO)
Goal: Reduce the cost of satellites and help the US industry be more responsive
in a growing international space market
What: Interoperability of satellite components through universalized
environments and standardized data and electrical interfaces
How: Leverage existing & evolving standards to help US industry coalesce
around industry consensus standards (which could become international)
ODNI
NRO
AFRL
SMC
NASA
Collaboration
SUMO Certified Components
Standards
Process
Space Universal
MOdular architecture
SUMO
Transition
Plan
Plug & Play
•
•
•
•
US Space Industrial Base
More Competitive Internationally
Larger Addressable Market
Less Time to Market/Orbit
Increased Innovation
US Government Buyer
• Reduced Acquisition Costs
• Enhanced Capabilities
Industry
4
Component Interfaces
Defined by the Application
Supplier A
Prime X
Component Interfaces Defined
by Industry Consensus
Supplier A
Prime X
OR
OR
Supplier B
OR
Prime Y
Supplier B
Prime Y
OR
Supplier C
OR
Prime Z
Supplier C
Prime Z
OR
Catalog, Common, or
Custom Bus
Modular Bus with
Open Interfaces
5
Software Layering Diagram
SUMO defines the
interfaces through
industry
consensus
6
Tenets for Success
• Leverage Existing Standards and Think Global
• Space Industry Consensus
• Avoid Commoditization – Protect Intellectual Property
• Natural Break-In Points for Gradual Introduction
– Avoid disrupting current programs
7
SUMO Evolutionary Path
AFRL:
NGSIS
DARPA:
F6
Experiment
Opportunities
$300M
ORS:
MSV
Risk Reduction
Opportunities
$50M
Leverage past and present
government and industry
investments to progress from
proprietary, custom
architectures to modular,
open network architectures
Industry:
Industry:
Time-Triggered
SPA
Variants
Gigabit
Ethernet
Industry:
Industry:
IRAD
Universal
>$100M
Qualification
Industry:
Integrated
Modular
Architecture
NASA:
Common
Instrument
Interface
NASA:
SpaceAge Bus
$4M,
13 Missions
Environments
Industry:
Platform
Commonality
Framework
Collaboration Fora:
SMC:
MONA and SNAP
for
Hosted payload
interfaces
AFRL:
MONARCH
(SPA)
$130M
NASA:
Core Flight
Executive
$12M,
20 Missions
EXISTING:
- Integrated Transition Team
-SUMO Special Interest
Group*
-CCSDS Spacecraft
Onboard Interface Services
-One-on-one technical
interchanges
DEFINED:
-Letter of Intent
-Space Industrial Base
Council Working Group
-DPA Title III Presidential
Determination
DEVELOPING:
-Cooperative R&D
Agreements
-Consortium for Space
Industry Standards
On-going Initiatives Have Many Similarities
*http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uspacesig
8
Space Avionics Open Interface Architecture
(SAVOIR)*
SAVOIR: an undertaking led by space European Agencies and
Industries aiming at promoting Space Avionics based on Open
Interfaces
• In its first phase, SAVOIR has federated the space avionics community around
the concept of reference architectures, standard interfaces, and generic
specifications
• SAVOIR second phase includes the refinement of reference architectures, the
elaboration of a product portfolio, and the production of two sets of generic
specifications
• The maturity and completeness of the SAVOIR concept will be assessed by
building lab demonstrators integrating a consistent set of items
*From ESA Website (http://www.congrex.nl/11c22/)
9
Business Case from Cost Analysis
• Aerospace Corp modeled US Satellite
Market to quantify savings on cost of bus
– Model included capture rate, technology
insertion, obsolescence, integration
complexity, organizational complexity, etc.
– Model reviewed twice by ODNI CAIG
• Findings:
– Over 17 years and 442 satellites
• Savings was $18.8B (29%)
• Payback Period was 9 Years
Component
LEO1
3
GPS Receivers
Transponders
Style
Style A
Style B
Style C
Style D
Style A
Style B
Style C
Style D
Style E
Style A
Style B
Style A
Style B
Style A
Style B
Style A
Style B
Style A
Style B
Style A
Integrated CDH
Style A
Processor Boards
Solar Cells
Battery Cell
Main Engine
Maneuver
Thrusters
RCS Thrusters
Style A
Style A
Style A
Style A
Torque Rods
Reaction
Wheel/CMGs
Sun Sensors
Magnetometers
Star Trackers
IMUs
Avgerage Satellite
Quantity Per Year
Style A
Style A
SV Class (Component Qty per SV)
LEO2
LEO3
LEO4
GEO1
GEO2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
1
2
2
6
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
5
6
8
8
8
4
752
1
5
2372
2
6
2959
2
8
11090
13
8
9274
24
1
8
19895
28
1
4
4
4
8
6
12
6
12
5.5
1.2
11.4
2.3
14.8
6.8
1
1
1
1
1 Year
Total
17
4
34
7
17
49
9
59
27
33
219
6
29
6
72
6
72
6
29
77
20 Years
Total
330
72
684
138
330
984
184
1184
544
660
4380
110
572
120
1436
110
1436
110
572
1546
288
5752
288
338763
606
22
5752
6775264
12124
432
130
350
2592
7000
LEO 3-4, GEO 1-2 Government & Commercial Business Case (100% Capture)
– Commercial space has the greatest savings
due to high volume (learning)
– Government savings reduced by low volume
(learning) and organizational complexity
• Not all SUMO benefits were monetized
– Net present value through ease of
reconfigurability should increase
Key Assumptions:
Cost Savings by Sponsor ($M)
• 100% Capture Business Case (Bus only)
• Government (3 organizations) + commercial satellites (1
organization)
• Government develops satellte bus separately from
commercial satellte bus
• LEO 3, LEO 4, GEO 1 and GEO 2 only
• 442 satellites over 17 years
• Satellite build = 5 to 7 years
Results:
 Potential Total Cost Savings is 29%
•
•
•
•
Business Case Closes
Payback Period= 9 Years(FY22)
Total Cost Savings = $18.8B
Cumulative Costs Savings = 29%
10
…a word about the Cost Model
•
Modeled full plug and play
– Industry has made clear they are not ready for full plug and play; SUMO cost
analysis will differ but this model gives a first approximation of savings
•
Modeled 5 to 7 years satellite bus acquisition
– Industry feedback indicates 2 to 3 years is reasonable…would accelerate
crossover point
•
Modeled the costs of two full satellites
– New approach models delta costs on top of funded project…reduces upfront NRE
•
NRO not modeled to gain learning from commercial industry
– Commercial industry buying 20 satellites per year
•
Modeled increased organizational conflict as more participants engaged and
provided input
– Reduced savings by 30%; realistic for the first decade but reasonable to expect
conflicts to be resolved over time (based on MilSTD-1553 experience)
An Average of 29% Savings on the Cost of a Bus is Significant
11
Potential Advantages Beyond Cost Savings
• Mission Assurance
• Increased Cost Sharing with Standard Interfaces for
Hosted Payload
• Multi-mission Flexibility; Mission Reconfigurability
• Reduced Build Schedule
• Plug-n-play Enabled Innovation and Technology Insertion
• Enhanced Monitoring and Anomaly Identification and
Resolution
• Higher Data Rate Potential for New Capabilities and
Additional Revenue Stream
Industries Which Standardize Interfaces Often see Growth and Improved Performance
12
Government Outreach and Support
Goal: understand policy & budget drivers, and industrial base policy issues.
Government Buyers & Stakeholders: Focus on affordability, responsiveness and
ability to maintain programs of record during budget driven era.
NASA
DoD
IC
Policy
• Deputy Administrator, Ch Eng, Ch Tech, GSFC Administrator
are very supportive. Representative to CCSDS.
• Iterating on SUMO Transition Plan, developed SpaceAGE Bus
and Core Flight Executive
• AT&L is very supportive. Helping SUMO propose for Title-III funds.
• AFSPC/CV is a “big fan of interface standards”.
• SMC/XR is developing industry-driven MONA (a part of SUMO);
iterating SUMO transition plan. AFRL created SPA.
• SMC also asked prime to investigate “universal” components
• PDDNI and ADNI/AT&F full support. Released CIG language.
• NRO is looking for components which could be
“universalized”; conducted modular bus study.
• OSTP supporting SUMO.
• NSC and OMB are very supportive.
• DoC (including ITA and NIST) are engaged.
13
Collaboration with NASA, SMC, & NRO
UNCLASSIFIED
How the Space
Community Can Reap
the Benefits of
Modular Open Network
Architecture (MONA)
A Perspective from NASA on
Standardization and Commonality
Jonathan.J.Wilmot@NASA.gov
Glenn.P.Rakow@NASA.gov
Dr. Roberta Ewart (SMC/XR)
8 April 2013
UNCLASSIFIED
 Seeking strategies to
influence industry to
provide modular, open
networked space capabilities
 Developing approaches to
overcome key challenges
 Utilize innovative acq
approaches and small,
strategic investments
 Business case must be
acceptable to industry
 Step-in/step-out influence
SUMO Workshop Briefing
28
 Goal of reducing cost on
spacecraft w/o negatively
impacting science return,
system reliability, operations
 Adopting an approach to
leverage standards and
create commonality in
software, hardware,
interfaces and tools
 Approach is vendor
agnostic, allows for evolution
and technology insertion
 A modular bus with
standard, open interfaces
will drive down NRE
A Unified Mindset with Collaborative Interaction Growing Across the Government
14
Industry Outreach and Support
Interaction through Request for Information (RFI) on FedBizOps, several SIA &
AIA sponsored workshops, conferences, site visits, telecoms and questionnaires
Satellite
Operators:
Support
- Potential improvement on Return on Investment and Net Present Value
- Also support buying services versus systems; Support hosted payloads
- Encourage commercial best practices
Primes &
Integrators:
Conditionally
Support
- Concerned about Reduced Profit; Suggested FFP acquisitions
- Prefer to promote proprietary solutions; will comply if gov’t requires SUMO
- Need government funding to compensate for long term return (~ 9 years)
- Very supportive of Common Qual Environment; ready to engage
- Also support Stable requirements; Risk tolerance
Component
Manufacturers:
Strongly
Support
- Stabilize the industrial base; lower NRE; improve competitiveness
- Common processes (testing) for hardware will expand margins
- Avoid commoditization; prefer implementation on new products
- Interface standards reduce barriers to market entry
Satellite Integration Subs:
Strongly Support
- Somewhat biased; confirmed that SUMO is technically
feasible and can reduce costs and assembly times
End to End (E2E) Service
Providers: Ambivalent
- Buy services versus systems; learn from commercial buyers
- More dialogue with industry
Industry unanimously noted that government commitment and funding is needed.
15
Why Many in Industry Support SUMO*
• Bus design with interoperable components allow design emphasis on payload technologies
• Suppliers can increase their production rates, margins and performance
• Common qualification environments diminishes inventory risk, and improves quality
• Increased use of fixed priced contracts for bus allows primes more latitude for controlling
margins
• Simplifies bus integration which allows innovation, reduces schedules and increases Net
Present Value
• Enhances global responsiveness through participation in international standards processes
• Addresses cyber security risk
• Public/private partnerships partially mitigate corporate upfront capital risk
• Realistic, logical transition plan uses natural break-in points for gradual introduction
• Interfaces will be carefully standardized to protect intellectual property and promote
innovation
• Step-in/step-out approach encourages industry-consensus standards and product
differentiation
A modular, open architecture such as SUMO presents a Space Industry Dilemma
*Based on interviews and written responses
16
Notional SUMO Transition Plan
• The Transition Plan is “notional” because it was created by a small,
experienced team; not yet by the executing agencies
– Comprised of former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), Deputy
Under Secretary for Space, Director of Space Transportation (NASA/HQ),
Director of SIGINT Acquisition (NRO), VP of Space Systems, NASA Programs
(Industry)
• Proposes Executive Coordination by Space Industrial Base Council
– Comprised of DoD(AT&L), DNI/AT&F, USAF, NASA, NRO, MDA, NOAA
• Phased to achieve early gains with regionalized qualification
environment while defining Architecture of Standards for interfaces
• Establishes role for certification agent and certification process
• Progresses from interface definition to interface development to
bench test to demo flight to program of record
• Plan tied to FYDP budget cycle; budget profiles aligned to sources
– Proposed sources include DPA Title III, Industry, and Executing Agents
17
Notional SUMO Transition Plan
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
F
CY13
CY14
CY15
CY16
CY17
CY18
CY19
CY20
CY21
CY22
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
FY Budget Cycle Windows
FY15 Bgt Cycle
FY17 Bgt Cycle
FY19 Bgt Cycle
FY21 Bgt Cycle
FY16 Bgt Cycle
FY18 Bgt Cycle
FY20 Bgt Cycle
FY22 Bgt Cycle
Exec Coord (SIBC)
LOIs
SIGNED
• Agency LOIs/MoAs
• Agency Budget Coord (annual)FY15
Universalization/CQE
MoAs
SIGNED
FY16
K/O
1 - Regional Components
3 - Play Side of SUMO
• Proto-Flight
• Programs of Record (POR)
SUMO-Next
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
D
…
D
D
D
D
US SUMO &
EDS R2
INT’L
K/O
LEGEND
DRFT AGNT FNL
2c - Certification Program
• Define Process & Agent
• Execute Certification
2d - Plug Side of SUMO
• Demonstration Prgms (Bench)
…
D
2a/b - SUMO AoS & EDS Dev
CCSDS (Qtrly)
FY18
D
D
1 - Universal Components
FY17
1st 5th
B = Submit Bgt
S = Start Work
D = Deliver
= Multiple
Deliveries
12th
…
B
S
B
B
…
D
S
D
D
ACQ
…
D
FINAL
PLAN
Initial
Partial
Full
D
S
DRFT
PLAN
SUMO Objective
Starting
…
D
EXECUTION
18
Way-Forward Highlights
•
•
Develop a Presidential Determination for Title III Funding
Getting agency engagement on near-term tasks including:
– Coordinating Letter Of Intent and developing a Memorandum of Agreement
– Supporting Space Industrial Base Council (SIBC) Integrated Transition Team and
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) forums with assigned
personnel
– Expanding US SUMO Special Interest Group and Industry Consensus Fora
•
•
•
Coordinate with Agencies for Transition plan to include fiscal programming
Define and develop Regionalization/Universalization Common Qual
Environment initiatives
Gain AIAA (and CCSDS) engagement on leading three aspects of SUMO AoS
development
– Electronic Data Sheets, Physical Electrical Interfaces, Data (SW Stack)
•
Refine and Validate Budget analysis
Advance Stakeholders from “Interested” to “Committed by Action”
19
BACK UPS
20
EU Standardized External Power Supply
•
In 2009 several government, consumer and industry initiatives resulted in
the European Union's specification of a common External Power Supply
(EPS) for use with data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU.
–
–
The "external power supply" is the AC power adapter that converts household AC electricity
voltages to the much lower DC voltages needed to charge a mobile phone's internal battery.
Although compliance is voluntary, a majority of the world's largest mobile phone
manufacturers have agreed to make their applicable mobile phones compatible with the EU's
common External Power Supply.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_External_Power_Supply
21
The Market Leader’s Dilemma: Diminish an Existing
Capability to Develop a New Capability?
Custom Bus is here
Period of Fine-tuning
Capability
Period of Compounded Innovation
Modular Bus is here
Period of Early Development
Time
Adapted From: Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen
22