S pace U niversal Mo dular Architecture (SUMO) Setting the Environment for Industry-Consensus Standards

1. September 2013 Space Universal Modular Architecture (SUMO) Setting the Environment for Industry-Consensus Standards Bernie Collins ODNI/AT&F

2. SUMO Agenda

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 • 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 NRO Collaboration SUMO Certified Components Space Universal MOdular architecture SUMO Plug & Play AFRL Standards Process SMC Transition Plan NASA Industry

4. Modular Bus with Open Interfaces Component Interfaces Defined by Industry Consensus Component Interfaces Defined by the Application Supplier A Supplier A Prime X Prime X OR Supplier B Supplier B Prime Y Prime Y OR Supplier C Prime Z Supplier C OR Prime Z OR OR OR Catalog, Common, or Custom Bus

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 ORS: MSV Risk Reduction Opportunities $50M • Collaboration Fora: • 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 DARPA: F6 Experiment Opportunities $300M NASA: Common Instrument Interface SMC: MONA and SNAP for Hosted payload interfaces • Leverage past and present government and industry investments to progress from proprietary, custom architectures to modular, open network architectures NASA: SpaceAge Bus $4M, 13 Missions AFRL: MONARCH (SPA) $130M Industry: SPA Variants Industry: Time-Triggered Gigabit Ethernet NASA: Core Flight Executive $12M, 20 Missions Industry: Universal Qualification Environments Industry: IRAD >$100M Industry: Integrated Modular Architecture Industry: Platform Commonality Framework 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 • 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

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. • 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 NASA • 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 DoD • PDDNI and ADNI/AT&F full support. Released CIG language. • NRO is looking for components which could be “universalized”; conducted modular bus study. IC • OSTP supporting SUMO. • NSC and OMB are very supportive. • DoC (including ITA and NIST) are engaged. Policy

13. Collaboration with NASA, SMC, & NRO • 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 • 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 • 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 • Potential improvement on Return on Investment and Net Present Value • Also support buying services versus systems; Support hosted payloads • Encourage commercial best practices Satellite Operators: 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 Primes & Integrators: Conditionally Support 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 • Somewhat biased; confirmed that SUMO is technically feasible and can reduce costs and assembly times Satellite Integration Subs: Strongly Support • Buy services versus systems; learn from commercial buyers • More dialogue with industry End to End (E2E) Service Providers: Ambivalent 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 FY15 Bgt Cycle FY17 Bgt Cycle FY19 Bgt Cycle FY21 Bgt Cycle FY Budget Cycle Windows FY16 Bgt Cycle FY18 Bgt Cycle FY20 Bgt Cycle FY22 Bgt Cycle • Exec Coord (SIBC) • Agency LOIs/MoAs • Agency Budget Coord (annual) LOIs SIGNED MoAs SIGNED FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Universalization/CQE D K/O LEGEND 1 - Regional Components D … D B = Submit Bgt S = Start Work D = Deliver • SUMO Objective • Starting • Initial • Partial • Full 2a/b - SUMO AoS & EDS Dev CCSDS (Qtrly) 1 - Universal Components D D D D D … INT’L US SUMO & EDS R2 K/O • 2c - Certification Program • Define Process & Agent • Execute Certification AGNT FNL DRFT … = Multiple Deliveries 1st 5th 12th • 2d - Plug Side of SUMO • Demonstration Prgms (Bench) B D S D … • 3 - Play Side of SUMO • Proto-Flight • Programs of Record (POR) B S D D … S B D D ACQ … SUMO-Next EXECUTION DRFT PLAN FINAL PLAN

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-enabledmobile 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