Session
Session 2: Delivering Mission Success
Abstract
The concept of mission assurance was developed so that technical, implementation, and management practices could be enabled to increase mission success of otherwise irrecoverable spacecraft. Understanding and implementing the mission assurance trade space for small satellites is important to improve success rates, tackle more challenging missions while managing expectations, scope missions, and minimize oversight burden that inhibits innovation. Small satellites generally selectively pick and choose, or completely ignore, the majority of the activities defined in Class A-D because constraints are an equally driving force and strongly compete with mission objectives. Further, government funded small satellite missions almost always fall under Class D, but they often create some tailored assurance profile that generally does not meet the intent of Class D, nor does Class D suffice for the realities of most small satellite missions. This paper organizes assurance profiles into a structure that better represents the current status by accounting for the constraint – mission objective trade space of small satellites. The new infrastructure focuses on studied and implemented practices that produce successful missions. These practices include: a well-defined scope that balances constraints and objectives, significant time dedicated to testing at all levels, and lessons-learned-design principles.
Defining a New Mission Assurance Philosophy for Small Satellites
The concept of mission assurance was developed so that technical, implementation, and management practices could be enabled to increase mission success of otherwise irrecoverable spacecraft. Understanding and implementing the mission assurance trade space for small satellites is important to improve success rates, tackle more challenging missions while managing expectations, scope missions, and minimize oversight burden that inhibits innovation. Small satellites generally selectively pick and choose, or completely ignore, the majority of the activities defined in Class A-D because constraints are an equally driving force and strongly compete with mission objectives. Further, government funded small satellite missions almost always fall under Class D, but they often create some tailored assurance profile that generally does not meet the intent of Class D, nor does Class D suffice for the realities of most small satellite missions. This paper organizes assurance profiles into a structure that better represents the current status by accounting for the constraint – mission objective trade space of small satellites. The new infrastructure focuses on studied and implemented practices that produce successful missions. These practices include: a well-defined scope that balances constraints and objectives, significant time dedicated to testing at all levels, and lessons-learned-design principles.
