CDF Infopack 2015

The ESA Concurrent Design Facility
Concurrent Engineering Applied to

space mission assessments
CDF
ESA/ESTEC
Noordwijk - NL
CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 1
ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public
CDF: what is it?

The ESTEC Concurrent Design Facility is an Integrated Design Environment
(IDE) available to all ESA programmes for interdisciplinary and interdirectorate applications, based on Concurrent Engineering methodology
The implementation started in Nov.1998, on an experimental basis with
initiative (and support) of the General Studies Programme (GSP)
Initially conceived for the assessment and the conceptual design of future
space missions, i.e. internal pre-phase A / feasibility studies
Featuring:
Team orientated concurrent engineering
Integration of tools, project data, mission and system models
Simultaneous participation of all mission domains, incl.
Programmatics/AIV, Operations, Cost Engineering, Risk Analysis, CAD,
Simulation
ESA Project life cycle

ESA-CDF record
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
Y
Industrial
Study
Industrial Study / Activity

Design work
Design work
Design work
Design work
B1
B2
C/D
Phase
0
or
CDF
Study
Stakeholders
(eg. Science
Community)
190+
Generation of
Mission Idea
32
System
Requirements
Contractual
Package
29
PRR
Update SRD
SRR
PDR
CDR
Update SRD
= CDF application / quantity

So, What is Concurrent Engineering

Concurrent Engineering is a systematic
approach to integrated product development
that emphasises the response to customer
expectations. It embodies team values of
cooperation, trust and sharing, in such a
manner that decision making is by consensus,
involving all perspectives in parallel, from the
beginning of the product life-cycle.
Teamwork
1. Sequential
Why do we need concurrent engineering?
Teamwork
2. Centralised
System Architect
To overcome the communication gaps between the designers (who produce design
information) and the users (who utilise the design information)
Teamwork
3. Concurrent
Team Leader
System Engineer
All of the people, all of the time, all in the same place
Teamwork - Comparison
Sequential
Centralized
Simple
Slow speed
Easy divergence from
requirement
Not fail safe
Poor communication
Efficiency increase
Speed increase
All aware of the
system
Relies on 1 central
person
Not fail safe
Concurrent
Natural
Efficiency increase
Speed increase
Increased system
awareness
Better Communication
Control
Needs guidance
Global
Increase of output quality and speed
Benefits
Performances (typical pre-Phase A

study):
Study duration (Design

phase): 3-6 weeks (cp. 6-9
months!)
Factor 4 reduction in time
Factor 2 reduction in cost

(for the Customer)
Increased nr of studies
per year, compatibly with
max 2 parallel studies
Quality improvement, providing

quick, consistent and complete
mission design, incl. technical
feasibility, programmatics, risk, cost
Technical report becomes part of

the specs for industrial activity,
(Cost report remains the ESA
independent reference)
Capitalisation of corporate
knowledge for further reusability
CDF: an essential tool for the ESA Decision Making & Risk Management processes
CDF: the team
1. Team of ESA specialists (senior and junior!)

2. Technical disciplines (CDF positions) selected for
Phase 0 studies (according to ESA organisation):
Systems
Instruments
Mission analysis
Propulsion
Attitude and Orbit Control
Structures/Configuration
Mechanisms/Pyros
Thermal
Power
Command and Data Handling
Communications
Ground Systems & Operations
Simulation
Programmatics
Black: sub-system level
Risk Assessment
Blue: system level
Cost Analysis
Red: based on hi-end tools
Note: Instrument design activities have specialised teams with disciplines such as
Receiver, Optics etc.
Process elements
1. Conducted in sessions
a. Plenary meeting where representatives of all space
engineering domains participate from early phases
(requirement analysis) to end of design (costing)
b. 6 to 10 sessions / study 4 hours / session
bi-weekly frequency
c.
Team leader co-ordination
d. Customer participation
2. Model driven
3. On-line design
4. Highly co-operative & interactive
5. Iterations
6. Design options comparison and trade-offs
Design process
Mission
requirements &
constraints
Study
results
Objectives
S/C Design
Environment
Configuration
Lifetime
Launcher
Payload
Risk
Reliability
Cost
Schedule
Simulation
Technology
Programmatics
Budget
Options
Study
requirements
Conceptual
model of
mission &
spacecraft
design process
Products
Study Level
Planning
Resources
CDF: Integrated Design Model (*)

1. Model each domain (e.g. s/s) design
2. Share data between domain models
3. Interface with domain specific tools
4. Provide user visibility
Use spreadsheets (MS Excel)
Replaced by OCDT (Open Concurrent Design Tool)

in the course of 2014
CE: iterative process

The Spiral Model
Mission Analysis
Key parameter Z
Mission Requirement
Analysis
Sub-system Design
Key parameter Y
Design Verification
Cost Analysis
Risk Assessment
Key parameter X
Exchanging Data
Process:
Discipline i
1. Specialist k performs
an estimate and shares
data in CR
2. Data is available to
other specialists
Discipline j
Cost
System
Discipline k
Central Repository (CR)

Data
Exchanging Data
Process:
Discipline i
data in CR
other specialists
3. Each specialist can use
this data to perform
calculations and share
Discipline j
the results
Discipline k
Cost
System

Data
Exchanging Data
Process:
Discipline i
data in CR
other specialists
Discipline j
the results
Cost
x. System makes budgets
System
Discipline k

Data
Exchanging Data
Process:
Discipline i
data in CR
other specialists
Discipline j
the results
Cost
x. System makes budgets

y. Overall process iterates
z. Final design done, all

information available in
CR
Discipline k
System

Data
Exchanging Data
vs. later phases
Concurrent early phases (0, A)
Later Phases (B, C, D, E)
baseline
time
ESA-CDF previous solution:

Integrated Design Model
Subsystem-1
Domain
Specific
Tools &
DBs
Large Data
Structures
Programmatics
Data
Exchange
Data
Parking
Risk
(scalars)
(matrices)
Cost
Presentation Sheets
Calculation Sheets
Subsystem-n
System
Outputs Sheet
Inputs Sheet
10
ESA-CDF NEW current solution:

Open Concurrent Design Tool (OCDT)
ConCORDE
PostgreSQL
Protocol
over TCP/IP
http(s) REST protocol

(on standard ports 80 or 443)
JSON content
Persistent Data Store

(PostgreSQL RDBMS)
Domain 1
ConCORDE
Domain 2
ConCORDE
Firewall
(optional)
Web Services Processor

(nodejs on Google V8)
DST
Domain 3
(Domain Specific Tool)

OCDT Server
OCDT Clients
ConCORDE
Domain N
ECSS-E-TM-10-23&25 Approach:
Standards and Tool Implementations
Semantic Data Model Standard
Semantic Data Model
Master Definition of Concepts
addresses what not how
Reference Data Libraries (RDLs)

Runtime loadable
predefined objects,
including QUDV and Categories
Runtime use
Automated
transformations
Generated
Derived Logical and

Physical Data Models
Software Implementations
Database
Database
Database
Tool
Tool
Tool
Interoperable tools
and databases
(including adapters
around existing tools)
11
OCDT and IDM Differences (1/2)

IDM
OCDT
Data Exchange
Save & Close Workbook

Data Exchange pulls new values in
New values available to all participants
Publications
Domain owner submits values to Server

Team Leader / SE publishes new Publication
Values in new Publication available to all participants
History of Iterations is kept
(model state at end of each Iteration is stored)
Owned Parameters in Outputs sheet

Input Parameters in Inputs sheet
Parameters and ParameterSubscriptions

in Definitions view & worksheet
Fixed, numbered naming convention for

architectural items and parameters
Any object has name and short name
Any architectural item or parameter can be uniquely referenced by

short name path, e.g.:
MySC.sm.str2.P_max\Cruise.On
short name path used as Excel cell-name for calculation sheets
OCDT and IDM Differences (2/2)

IDM
OCDT
Fixed naming and structure of decomposition

levels
System, Element, Equipment,

Instrument,
Configurable Categories and Rules in RDL, adaptable for family

of applications
Space missions
Launchers
Instruments
System of systems
Support for options
Option-specific architecture built by copypaste
One workbook per Option
Support for options
All Options defined in Definitions view
Single-source modular definition of re-usable building

blocks
Only configure differences per Option
Automatically generate fully expanded architecture

worksheet for each Option in Domain workbook
One worksheet per Option
12
Payload &
P/L accommodation
Advanced launchers
Diverse range of space

missions
Clean Space and Future

Programmes
Socrates
ROSITA instrument on
Columbus External Platform
Heavy Lift
Launch Vehicle
Future
Telecomms
Deorbit strategies
ExoMars
Telescopes and
Technology
FIRI
ISS Internal Payload
Science Requirements
Definition
IMPACT facility inside an
ISS rack
WiFLY
Sentinel
Laplace
System of Systems architecture

System of Systems (SoS) studies involve different participants and tools but are still
carried out in a concurrent environment.
SoS should be distinguished from large but monolithic systems by the independence of
their elements, their evolutionary nature, emergent behaviours, and a geographic
extent that limits the interaction of their elements to information exchange.
13
System of Systems
Architecture Activities
Evaluated set of architectures (based on customer preferences/priorities)
Identification of potential additional service(s)
CDF layout
Printer Room
Coffee Room
Meeting Room
Annex Design Room
Archive Room
Server Room
Lobby
Design Room A
Design Room B
Projection Room
14
ESA-CDF Facility
Room A
ESA-CDF Facility
Room A
15
17 Concurrent Design Centres in

European Space Sector
The Netherlands
CDF at ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk
United Kingdom
CDF at Univ. of Strathclyde, Glasgow
SDO at EADS/Astrium, Stevenage
CDF at Univ. of Southampton, Southampton
CDF at Harwell Institute, Oxford
Germany
CEF at DLR, Bremen
SDO at EADS/Astrium, Friedrichshafen
France
CDF at ISU, Strasbourg
PASO at CNES, Toulouse
SDO at EADS/Astrium, Toulouse
CDF at Thales Alenia Space, Cannes
legend
Agency
Industry
University
Switzerland
CDF at EPFL, Lausanne
Italy
COSE at Thales Alenia Space, Torino
ISDEC at Thales Alenia Space, Roma
CDF at La Sapienza Univ., Roma
CEF at ASI, Roma
Portugal
CDF at Univ. Tcnica de Lisboa, Lisbon
31
Agencies (Europe)
DLR (Bremen) CEF

Inauguration 8 Dec. 2008
CNES CIC
Inauguration Nov. 2005
16
Agencies (Europe)
ASI CEF
opening 13 July 2008
Agencies (USA)
NASA-JPL PDC Team X
17
Industry (Europe)
EADS ASTRIUM (D) - SDO (Satellite Design Office)
Industry (Europe)
TAS-I & F (Turin, Rome, Cannes) - CDF
18
Academia
Victorian Space Science

Education Centre
(VSSEC)
Melbourne
Australia
Academia
ISU CDF
EPFL
19
Further information
Provided on the CDF Web site:
http://www.esa.int/cdf
20

CDF Infopack 2015

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CDF Infopack 2015

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The ESA Concurrent Design Facility

Concurrent Engineering Applied to

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 1

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

CDF: what is it?

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

ESA Project life cycle

Industrial Study / Activity

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 3

= CDF application / quantity

So, What is Concurrent Engineering

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 4

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 5

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

Performances (typical pre-Phase A

Study duration (Design

Factor 4 reduction in time

Factor 2 reduction in cost

Quality improvement, providing

Technical report becomes part of

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 9

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

CDF: the team

1. Team of ESA specialists (senior and junior!)

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 10

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

Team leader co-ordination

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

CDF: Integrated Design Model (*)

Replaced by OCDT (Open Concurrent Design Tool)

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 13

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

CE: iterative process

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

Central Repository (CR)

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 15

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

Central Repository (CR)

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 16

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

x. System makes budgets

Central Repository (CR)

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 17

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

x. System makes budgets

z. Final design done, all

Central Repository (CR)

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

Later Phases (B, C, D, E)

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 19

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

ESA-CDF previous solution:

CDF Info Pack 2015| Slide 20

ESA UNCLASSIFIED Releasable to Public

ESA-CDF NEW current solution:

http(s) REST protocol

Persistent Data Store

Web Services Processor

(Domain Specific Tool)