Defining a Space Mission Architectural Framework: Guiding Robotic Space Mission Design and Development at NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center

Richardson, David H ; Borky, John M ; Naves, David G ; Sellers, Jerry JSlane, Frederick A

关键词: COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMS;    MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS;    MISSION PLANNING;    NASA SPACE PROGRAMS;    PROJECT MANAGEMENT;    ROBOTICS;    SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;    SPACE MISSIONS;    SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;   

RP-ID  :  GSFC-E-DAA-TN74373

美国|英语

来源: NASA Technical Reports Server

【 摘 要 】

Modern Systems Engineering activities for robotic science missions face increased complexity due to evolving measurement requirements, increased collaboration amongst stakeholders and increased collaboration between human and robotic systems. While NASA has employed standard process frameworks for project management and systems engineering for years, it has not yet established an architecture framework (AF) by which its mission systems are described. While an architecture framework is not a necessary component of an organization's operations, the value of a specified AF greatly enhances an organization's ability to define systems consistently and aid in communication across project and organizational boundaries. The current effort identifies an approach to establishing a Space Mission Architecture Framework (SMAF), an AF with roots in ISO 42010 (Systems and Software Engineering-Architecture Description), NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5 (NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements) and 7123.1B (NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements). The heart of the AF lies in its viewpoints and work products, artifacts that represent a set of information from the viewpoint of a particular stakeholder. This effort articulates the needs, goals and objectives that the SMAF addresses, as well as the approach to creating the framework and establishing the various work products. A full set of work products, sufficient to satisfy the Mission System reporting requirements of NPR 7120/7123 at Key Decision Point (KDP) A is identified in this paper.