SUMO Status and Future Plans
CCSDS
November, 2014
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Activity Highlights
Government ITT Status
Industry Status and Plans
Overall Future Plans
Selected Technical Working Group Updates
Activity Highlights
• June 24-26 Workshop - 75 participants: 50% industry, 50% government
– Sessions
• Plenary: Industry, Government and Technical Working Groups (TWGs) on purpose, scope,
status, support, opportunities, challenges
• Breakouts: TWGs: H/W, S/W, CQE, Hosted Payload, EDS, Data Model, Cybersecurity); Steering
level – strategy, scope and business case
– Summary Results
• Overall agreement on TWG scope and priority
• Industry took action to indicate commitment of initial funding/resources by Sept 15 for final
decision on whether sufficient interest to form consortium
• Industry emphasized need for explicit government assurances (e.g. Letter of Intent) as catalysts
to closing business case
• Monthly Rhythms: July through October
–
–
–
–
Industry Monthly (cross-section of CSIS industry leadership – primes and suppliers)
Government Integrated Transition Team (ITT) – NASA, USAF/SMC, IC
Joint Government / Industry Leadership Meeting
Architecture Board and Technical Working Groups
• October 2 Industry Planning Meeting (see additional charts)
Government Integrated Transition
Team (ITT) Status
• USAF/SMC, NASA, and IC progress
– Letter of Intent – Initial updates complete and in
senior (signatory) level review
– ITT Charter – Updates complete and in circulation
for signature
– Continued participation in TWGs
October 2 Industry Meeting
• Collective decision not to move forward with the proposed
“stand-alone” consortium
–
–
–
–
Insufficient number of sponsoring members
Majority of primes saw value to both government and industry
Suppliers struggled with business case to commit
Government participation (e.g. FACE model) would likely increase
industry participation
• Industry interest to pursue other alternatives to begin to
achieve voluntary consensus standards and reduced cost;
– Narrow the scope/focus to achieve early success
– Consensus reached to organize around Common Qualification
Environments (CQE) area initially
– Work iteratively via other existing forums (vs. new forum)
– Attain proactive government support/advocacy (e.g. FACE, OMS)
Future Plans
• Reconstitute and charter CQE TWG as primary
industry focus (to demonstrate early success)
• Other TWGs may continue progress provided
sufficient interest/resources
– Industry to consult with HW and SW TWGs to adjust their
paths and promote coordination (in lieu of consortium)
• Determine new industry / government battle
rhythm(s) as appropriate
Architecture Board
Lead: Fred Slane
• Established a framework based on ISO 42010 for:
– Stakeholders to express specific concerns to TWGs
– Information from TWGs to respond to stakeholders
– Cross-flow of TWG information
• Captured the framework in an Architecture Description to be
shared with Standards Development Organizations such as CCSDS,
ISO TC20/SC14, AIAA, TOG, etc. The CSIS Architecture Description is
effectively a subset of the different SDO reference architectures.
• Initiated development of views for products and processes logical
decomposition into modules so they can be tracked and modeled.
• Began a standards view to show which existing standards are
relevant and where gaps exist.
• CSIS government and industry participants will continue to be
informed of architecture description developments and standards
at the relevant open space SDOs.
Software Architecture TWG
Lead: Ron Kohl, R.J. Kohl & Assoc.
• Status:
–
–
–
Working on completing a set of Quality Attributes for a generic spacecraft SW Arch. This involves
identifying candidate QAs, acquiring or creating definitions and descriptions, reviewing/agreeing
upon those definitions and descriptions and proposing metrics to measure how well a given SW Arch
has attained those QAs. Finally, providing guidance as to how the QAs could be used/prioritized for a
specific SW Arch.
Reviewing and comparing the SUMO needs of a SW Arch set of products/info to other existing SW
Arch projects (e.g. FACE, cFE, SAVIOR). This will help to determine if/what can be ‘reused’ from
existing open systems architecture projects and where will new artifacts need to be developed.
Interacting with the H/W TWG to discuss if/how some of the h/w related arch views could or
should be integrated with the s/w arch views to provide a more integrated set of views combining
both SW and the HW that the SW interacts with. This is a fairly new activity and not much work has
been done yet.
• Next steps:
–
–
–
Complete the definition, description of the QAs and propose candidate metrics.
Complete a report that compares existing OSA projects to SUMO and identify existing products and
processes that could be ‘reused’ for SUMO and things which are missing,
Determine if there is value, time and resources to complete the ‘SW arch views should be integrated
with HW arch views’ activity.
Electronic Data Sheet (EDS) TWG
Lead: Ray Krosley
•
Participation in ISO subcommittee 13 (CCSDS) SOIS working group:
–
–
–
–
•
Integration of EDS’s with model-based system engineering tools:
–
–
–
–
–
•
my review of recommended standard for EDS has been submitted to SOIS WG for Fall meeting.
defining use cases during Fall meeting
defining validation process during Fall meeting
release for CCSDS review after Fall meeting
MBSE is an alternative focus for EDS, compared to imposing controversial standard interfaces.
Benefit is reduction of NRE throughout vehicle life (design, integration, operation)
discussing JPL MBSE in review of CCSDS RASDS standard at Fall CCSDS meeting
communicating with Jonathan Wilmot on JSC integration of MBSE and EDS
integration with SUMO data model working group products
Seeking inputs to develop EDS syntax and vocabulary for hardware interface
descriptions.
–
–
–
–
–
NASA MBSE work will likely feed this effort
participating in SUMO hardware working group
possibly ISO subcommittee 14
other access to industry subject matter experts to be determined
access to closely held device data sheets within mission boundaries for real examples from
which to develop general EDS syntax and ontology for public reuse
•
prior work at AFRL
Cyber Security TWG
•
Purpose
–
–
–
–
•
Status
–
–
–
–
•
Identify cyber threats throughout project lifecycle
Enumerate mitigation tools and strategies (Include or reference existing standards, documents, guidebooks,
etc. where applicable)
Examine how existing cyber best practices can be adapted for space
Scope includes Space to Ground link, onboard network, network of satellites
Explained project life-cycle phases
Reviewed example of cyber threat analysis and mitigation strategy identification
Discussed risk/cost/benefit matrix
Clarified scope of standards effort
Path Forward
–
–
–
–
–
Affirmed value of threat analysis and mitigation strategy identification
Define tiered cyber defense envelopes (Analogous to spacecraft classes, FAA aircraft classes, etc)
Provide cyber threat analysis of CSIS hardware/software standards and reference architecture
Identified need for closer collaboration with other working groups - Software Architecture TWG has
representation in the cyber group; hardware should have as well
Attain additional resource allocation from industry reps - Thorough cyber analysis will require additional
resources, training, collaboration
Hardware TWG
Lead: Patrick Collier, AFRL
• Established two sub-groups within the Hardware Working
Group (WG)
– The “Inside-the-box” group
– The “outside-the-box” group
• Agreed to a set of “first” items to standardize (electrical and
data interfaces to start)
• The Outside group developed an interface sheet for members
to input information as to what interfaces they use regularly.
• The Inside group started a mapping between SpaceVPX,
SpaceFRAME, and the SpaceWire Backplane.
Common Qualification Environments (CQE) TWG
Lead - Chris Arroyo, Boeing
• Vision Statement
– Creation of more effective and efficient standards for
components (units) and parts to reduce requalification
across mission types
• Charter
– Form a group of Industry representatives from Primes
(major space vehicle providers) and Suppliers (units,
subassembly and piece parts) to define/identify a standard
or set of standards which will establish common
environmental qualification tests and levels/durations
• This will allow a one-time hardware qualification to meet the
requirements for the majority of space vehicle orbits and mission
durations
CQE First Steps
•
This WG was chartered to work 2 areas: Unit common qualification and Piece Part
common qualification
– We are focusing on Unit common qualification
•
We identified what units are most common on space satellites across Primes
– Reaction Wheels (and electronics), Star Trackers, IMUs, GPS Receivers, Transceivers, Sun
Sensors, Torque Rods, SADA/SADE
– The emphasis was on units where circuit boards and power supplies were contained in
an housing
•
We asked Aerospace for qualification history on thrusters and reaction wheels as a
data point on how many failures typically occur across Industry
– Results were non conclusive
•
The most recent task was to review at MIL-STD-1540 and other associated
standards for the scope of these standards and how this group would specify test
levels and durations
– This task was on hold until the Oct 2 meeting results were known
CQE Next Steps
•
•
Identify what expectations CSIS is looking for from CQE
Identify/verify the near-term focus of the group
–
•
Define the team structure
–
•
•
•
Unit only or both unit and piece part
One Lead, Lead and Co-Lead, how many Primes and how many Suppliers required for minimum
participation
Define what products the group is to deliver and what is the process to
deliver/release the products
Define the schedule the group is going to operate to and will be used to measure
progress
Define what reporting “up” is required and how reporting is to be accomplished
When all these steps are complete or near complete,
Hold a Kick-Off to get the group restarted