Week4-5-6 Conceptual Design ARO2011L-2021

Fundamentals of Systems
Engineering
Conceptual System Design
Prof. Dobbs
ARO 2011L
Week #4-5-6 Lecture and
CoDR/SDR Templates
Spring 2021
1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #4 - 1

Start Week 4

Course Outline
Conceptual (Aircraft)/ System (Spacecraft) Design Phase
Conceptual System
4 Team Chosen System for
Design: Charts 2.0 & 2.1,
Design Project, Team
3.1, 5.1-5.7, 6.0
CoDR/SDR DRAFT Chart
Title,1.1 -1.6 in lecture notes,
Individual HW 4-1 Mending
Fences Article
Conceptual System Team HW# 5-1: CoDR/SDR
5
Design, Con’t; Charts 4a DRAFT Charts 2.0 & 2.1, 3.1
& 4b,7a,b, 8a,b, Quiz #1? 5.1-5.7,6.0
Technical Writing,
6 Chapter 5. Technical Writing Team HW# 6-1 CoDR/SDR
CoDR/SDR DRAFT
lecture DRAFT Charts 4a & 4b,7a,b,
charts 3.2 thru 3.5; 9.0,
8a,b Chose team leads L2 &
10.0, 11.0
D2
Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #7 - 3

Review – Systems Engineering
• System definition and elements - WBS
– Subsystems – 2nd level of a system WBS , performs a one of the major system
capabilities
– Components – 3rd level of a system WBS, the operating parts
– Attributes – the properties that characterize the system – become Requirements
– Relationships – the linking requirements between components and attributes,
defined in the ICD (Interface Control Doc)
– What is included in the WBS? – EVERYTHING THAT COSTS THE PROGRAM
MANAGER MONEY AND EVERYTHING IT TAKES TO DO THE MISSION
• Classification of systems
– Static – structure without activity
– Dynamic – structure with activity
– Closed – does not interact significantly with its environment
– Open – allows information, energy, and matter to cross its boundaries
• Life Cycle Reviews
– Needs MDR (Mission Definition Review)
– Conceptual Design or Systems Definition (NASA) CoDR/SDR
– Preliminary Design PDR
– Detail or Final Design (NASA) CDR (Critical Design Review)
– Production / Fab & Integration (NASA) PRR/SAR (Prod Read Review/ Sys Acceptance Review)
– Ops /Utilization & Support//Deployment & Ops (NASA) OPRR (Operational Readiness Review)
– Disposal DR (Decommissioning Review)
NASA Project Management Wall Chart : Life Cycle
https://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+project+life+cycle&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS884US884&sxsrf=ALeKk0057xYFKTSdqshyIb9S5D9cJBrFTw:15843853003
48&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=O7Q-kGZ7zAGuXM%253A%252CnBySkxWlEDQKHM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-
kQ4yjkFsMz6B1ZxTPWHWJXznLzgTQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRw46Y15_oAhUPIqwKHRtcCfwQ9QEwCnoECAkQJA#imgrc=O7Q-kGZ7zAGuXM:
A time line that presents the Product Life Cycle Phases, Design Review decision milestones, Engineering task flows, system
maturity WBS levels, Staffing & management schedules, and Design Reviews’ products and control gates over the entire
product life cycle required for NASA
Oct. 2008 productEngineering-Fundamentals
Aerospace development and operations programs
of Systems - DOWN-LOAD for your reference
Engineeering Week #3 - 5
Requirements Definition
Templates
Review and more details…
ARO 2011L Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #3 - 6

and Design
What is a Requirement? (Review)
• A statement that must have (1) a TOPIC or subject, (2) a measurable
VALUE or characteristic, and (3) a CONSTRAINT (where does it
apply)!
– The aircraft shall have a maximum Mach number of 3.0 at the cruise
altitude of 75,000 ft.
– Ex.: (1) The aircraft shall have a maximum Mach number of (2) 3.0 (3) at
the cruise altitude of 75,000 ft.
• Must be a complete statement, lack ambiguity, and define a specific
scope.
• Defines a capability or attribute or relationship that the system must
perform or have
• Can define a process that must be followed.
• Includes design, cost and schedule constraints from all the
stakeholders
• Written so that different people all interpret it the same way
• Must be achieved for the design to be approved

Two Categories of Requirements
• Primary or “Systems Level” Requirement (SLRs)
– Flows down from the Program Objectives and stated by the customer in the RFP (Request for Proposal) to
meet the “Program Goals” to meet the customer’s ”Need”
– Those requirements levied on a contractor/producer under force of contract. The identification is
unambiguous.
– An example would be: “T0.0-1 (0.0= System level in the WBS) The space system shall have a safety loss of
crew of 1 in a minimum of 10,000 missions for ascent, re-entry and landing mission segments, including
populations around the launch site”
– Includes Design Reference Missions (DRMs) as SLRs
• Derived Requirement (DRs)
– Generated from the primary requirements, i.e. based on the contractor’s chosen design approach to achieve
the primary or “System Level” requirement.
– An example would be: “T1.1.7 (1.1.7= Crew Escape element in WBS) The Loss of crew metric requires a
crew escape system that will protect the crew with a separation and survive functional reliability of
99.9999% for ascent, re-entry and landing mission segments”.
– The derived requirement for a crew escape system is derived from the System Level requirement “T0.0-1
The space system shall have a safety loss of crew of 1 loss in a minimum of 10,000 missions for ascent, re-
entry and landing mission segments…”
• How do you change a requirement?
– Why change? Change in the customer needs? Requirement not achievable with physics?
Costs too much? Found a better way to meet the Objectives? Etc….
– Change a Primary or “System Level” requirement: a contract change is required with
approval from the customer (costs $$ and time, AVOID SLR changes if possible!!!).
– Change a Derived requirement: the decision to change rests with program management
• Change must be within the scope of the parent primary requirement, other wise will have to change the
System Level Requirement from which it is derived.
The SLRs come from the customer in the RFP,

the DRs are defined by the contractor to achieve the SLRs
1/18/2021 Week #4 - 8
Types of Requirements;
used in the Req. Ref. #
• T= Technical Requirement
– Design Ref Mission, Max speed, payload weight capability, crew
safety, maintenance turn-around time, dogfight kill ratio, etc.
• Programmatic Requirement:
– M = Management or Schedule
• Conduct tech reviews, Launch window date, Initial Operating
capability, etc.
– C = Cost
• System acquisition cost, development cost, life cycle cost,
operations cost, etc.
– E = Environmental impact
• Pollution parts/million, noise, sonic boom, radiation, etc.
ARO 2011L Week #3 - 9

What is a FOM? (Review)
• FOM’s = “Figures of Merit”
– These are the most important System Level Requirements that are key “DESIGN
DRIVERS”, i.e. the requirements that determine your system design key design
variables that will be compared in a trade study of various design concepts.
– FOMs are DISCRIMINATORS in selecting the best design architecture
• Example: FOM 2 - T0.0-2 The total upper-stage payload stack for travel to the asteroid, landing, and sample
return shall not exceed 63,470 pounds.
• Example Design driver: Upper stage structural materials’ strength / weight ratio (if too low will exceed
63,470 pounds to meet strength requirements)
• There are many different materials and architectures design approaches to accomplish this for an
“analysis of alternatives” architecture trade study; a design that is BETTER that the FOM gets extra points
in the evaluation.
– There are usually 6 to 10 FOMS used as the scoring criteria in a trade study
covering technical, cost, schedule and environmental requirements
• Non-FOM’s –
– System Level Requirements that are just “Go-dos”, i.e. not usually a design
variable, like “The spacecraft exterior visible surfaces shall be painted
white”. = same approach for all design candidates.
– Also can be a “KEC” (Key Evaluation Criteria), like T0.0-6 Maximum vehicle
length cannot exceed 360 ft. to accommodate existing launch pads.
• All architectures cannot exceed this length, but being shorter has no advantage.
• Used for early elimination of design architectures that cannot meet the KEC
FOMs are a sub-set of the SLRs have attributes that push “Design Drivers” and are
used as key evaluation criteria in trade studies
ARO 2011L Week #3 - 10
Detailed Sub-Categories of FOM’s
Decompose all metrics (FOMs, TPMs, all very similar) into metrics
that have 3 types across the 3 dimensions:
1. Operational Metric (FOM) = Measure of
Operational Effectiveness (MOE)- Missions
2. Functional Metric (TPM) = Key Performance
Parameter (KPP) - Performance
3. Physical Metric (KSA) = Key System Attribute
(Weight, Cost, Volume, Power required, Heat
dissipated, Vibe qual level, Temp qual level,
etc.) – Physical Architecture
FOM’s are selected from the list of the RFP System Level
Requirements based on being a key “Design Driver” for 3
dimensions of your
1/18/2021
system design: Operations, Functions, and
the Physical Architecture
Decomposing System Design Requirements
Definition of Need-Goals-Objectives
Requirements Analysis
• Mission Models
•Operational requirements
• Maintenance and support concept
• Mission Feasibility analysis
• Measures of effectiveness
(Figures of Merit or
technical performance measures) Level 0 System Level Requirements
Design Evaluation
• Identification of design
dependent parameters (DDPs)
= “Design Drivers”
• Analysis and trade-off studies
Feedback
• Synthesis and evaluation Level 1 Sub-system Derived Requirements
Requirements Analysis
• Functional analysis and allocation

• Measures of effectiveness
Level 2 Components and sub-components
(Technical Performance Measures)
Derived Requirements
Design Evaluation
• Identification of DDPs
• Analysis and trade-off studies
• Synthesis and evaluation
Derived Requirements Updates
1/18/2021 Week #4 - 12
NEED
Space Launch Initiative Architecture Synthesis Uses Top-Down Systems
Requirements Decomposition Driven Process to Meet Figures of Merit Goals
Goals
Objectives
Conceptual Design - Systems Engineering
Future Architecture Sub-system Technology
Design Ref
Missions – Sys Missions Updates Updates Updates
Level Reqmts
Commercial Sub- Components

Missions systems • Launch Veh
Derived
NASA Architecture Reqmts
Level 0 Level 1 • Launch Site Level 2 • Crew Vehicle updates
DoD Reqmts Reqmts • Flight SupportReqmts • Launch pad
• Earth-to-Orbit •Mission control
• Orbit-to-Orbit •Etc.
Risk
Management
Iterate Plan
Assessment Assessment Assessment
Value Value Value
Assessment Assessment Assessment
Select FOMs FOMs FOMs
Architecture • Convergence • Legal • Safety
• Business Case • Regulatory • Reliability
• Assured Access • Programmatic • Cost
• Evolvability
1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 13
Week 4 Templates
• Charts 2.0 & 2.1 updates – Org charts
• 3.1 Sys Architectures (first-cut or updates)
• Charts 5.1-5.7 Operational Requirements

Your ARO 2011L Conceptual Design Review –
Presentation #1 Table of Contents & Score Card
ARO 2011- ______ Team # = _____ Score: Score:
Team Leader #1 _______________________________ Content Chart Clarity &
0- 5 ** Oral
Subject ______________________________________ presentation
0-5 ##
0. Title page
1.1 Needs analysis, 1.2 Goals, 1.3 Objectives, 1.4 DRM’s, X 8= X 8=

1.5a System Level Req, 1.5b Key FOMS, 1.5c Derived
Requirements,, 1.6 Life Schedule x 8
2. Organization Chart – Conceptual Design
3. Candidate Architectures/Feasibility Analsis, FOM’s, & X5= X5=

trades x 5
4. Work Breakdown Structure
5. Operational requirements x 7 X 7= X7=
6. Maintenance & support concept
7. Five Tech Performance Meas’s
8. Functional block diagram
9. System spec (FOMS & Reqmts)
10. Compliance Matrix.
11. Summary
Total Scores
Total Score
** 5=1/18/2021
Showed Complete key content, 4= most , 3 = about
Aerospace half, 2= less than 50% , 1=
Engineering-Fundamentals little content,
of Systems 0= missing chart
## 5= All charts clear and readable + oral clear and good volume, 4 = Most charts + most oral, 3= about half charts half oral, 2= less than half, 1= little,
0= missing chart
Team 2.0 Organization Chart &
Logo
CoDR/SDR Chart Responsible Person
Conceptual Design
0.0 Team Lead
Chart 2, 10, 11
Rodney Rocket
Deputy: Chew Baca
1.0 Chief 4.0 Work Breakdown 6.0 Maintenance &

3.0 Chief Architect Structure 5.0 Operations
Systems Support
Charts 3 Chart 4 Analysis
Engineer Charts 6
Charts 5
Charts 1,7,9 Charts 8
Frank Wright Buzz Lightyear
Dep.: Princess Lea Dep. Sally ride Flame Out
Sally Ride Chew Baca
Dep.: Rodney Rocket
Dep.: Flame Out Dep.: Buzz Lightyear
Our conceptual design team has previously designed four launch vehicles
over the last 20 years with over 120 successful launches to LEO
Team
Logo 2.1 Org Chart Responsibility Charters
For each Org box, define the job “charters:, i.e. the job responsibilities
and which chart numbers that each Box lead will be responsible for in
you CoDR presentation.
Examples:
• 0.0 Team Lead -
• 0.1 Team Deputy –
• 1.0 Chief Systems Engineer
• 3.0 Chief Architect – responsible for the design of the system
architecture candidates, leads the architecture trade study and down
selection process.
• 4.0 etc. etc..
•
Main Message of this chart ……

Candidate Architectures
for Analysis of Alternatives- Example of 3 Architectures
Cost $1,000/lb 1,400/lb $1,500/lb
Falcon heavy Cost $204 /lb
1/18/2021 Week #4 - 18
Team Customer
Logo 3.1 System Candidate Architectures Logo
for Feasibility Analysis, Project: Air Force RLV
Need for System: Low cost Reusable Launch System Capable of Rapid Refurbish and re-launch to replace costly expendable rockets
System Architecture #1- System Architecture #2- System Architecture #3-

“Conventional Fly-back TSTO” “Two Stage Hyper Plane” “Single Stage to Orbit”
Attributes: Attributes: Attributes:

1. Two stage to orbit ___________ 1. Two stage to orbit ___ 1. Single stage to orbit________
2. Current Technologies (low risk)_ 2. Medium Term Technology Devel. 2. Long term technology devel
3. LoX – RP liquid Propellant___ (Medium risk) (high risk).
4. Separate Crew and Cargo 3. Turbo Jet/ Scram Jet Air 3. Scram Jet_, solid rocket assist_
modules breathing 4. Combined crew and cargo
5. Vertical Take-off/ Horiz. 4. Combined crew and cargo____ 5. Horizontal take-off/ Horiz.
Landing__ 5. Vertical Take off/ Horiz. Landing_ Landing
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
Sketch Sketch Sketch
2nd stage, fly back Payload Pod,
expendable 2nd stage scram jet , glide
back, integrated payload
Single stage scram jet /rocket

1st stage-fly back to 1st stage turbo/scram assist, glide back, integrated
launch site jet , fly back payload
1/18/2021 Week #4 - 19
Team Customer
Logo 3.1 System Candidate Architectures Logo
for Feasibility Analysis
Need for System ________________________________________________________________________
System Design Approach #1 System Design Approach #2 System Design Approach #3
Attributes: ________________ Attributes: __________________ Attributes: ___________________

__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
__________________________ __________________________ __________________________
Sketch Sketch Sketch

System Feasibility Analysis
Technical
Feasibility
Approach for
Analysis
System Design
• Identify various possible system-level design approaches

that could be pursued in response to the need
• Evaluate the most likely approaches in terms of
performance, effectiveness, maintenance and sustaining
support, and life-cycle economic criteria
• Recommend a preferred course of action
Life-cycle considerations must be an inherent aspect of the

feasibility analysis.
Feasibility Analysis:
Throw-out obvious Design Alternative losers using simple evaluation criteria
Design Requirements
(Criteria/Constraints)
Design Design Design

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
• Define analysis goals

• Select and weigh evaluation parameters
• Identify data needs
• Identify evaluation techniques
• Select/develop a model
Select an • Generate data and run model
Alternative • Evaluate design alternatives
• Conduct sensitivity analysis
• Identify areas of risk and uncertainty
• Recommend preferred alternative
Define feasibility evaluation criteria-

Selected Approach could be one or more of the following:
•Obviously cannot meet a key system level
Is the requirement ___?
Approac •Much too large?
No
h •Much too costly?
Feasible •Technologies required much too risky?
? Yes •Not innovative enough ?
•Not safe?
System Concept •Etc.
Definition

System Operational Requirements
• What are the anticipated type and quantities of

equipment, software, personnel, facilities, etc.,
required, and where are they to be located?
• How is the system to be used, and for how long?
• What is the anticipated environment at each
operational site?
• How is the system to be supported, by whom,
and for how long?

Define the Operational Concept
to Derive the Operational Requirements
5.1 Design Reference Missions definition
(add detail to Chart 1.4-1, -2, etc.)
5.2 Performance and physical parameters
5.3 Operational deployment or distribution
5.4 Operational life-cycle
5.5 Utilization requirements
5.6 Effectiveness factors
5.7 Environments
0- 5 ** Oral
0-5 ##
0. Title page

2. Organization Chart
3. Candidate Architectures/Feasibil. ana. FOM’s, & X5= X5=

trades x 5
11. Summary
Total Scores
Total Score
** 5=1/18/2021
0= missing chart
Template Charts 5-1 thru 5-7
• Use the Exact Chart numbering and Titles (this is true for
all charts in your presentation!!!)
• Use the template questions as Bolded Headings on
your chart
• Answer the questions in the underlined space as bullets,
using the Examples as a guide.
• Add your sketches and graphs as shown on the template
• ALL charts MUST have a yellow message box at the
bottom… no fluff or “motherhood”, say the specific
message you want the audience to remember about the
chart

Team
Logo
5.1-1,or -2,-3 Design Reference Mission # 1
( Definition of how the system is to be used, one chart per design ref mission,
(use Charts 1.4-1,2,etc and add more detail in the format below; sketch may be on a separate chart with same title)
• Name of Mission & - What is the system to accomplish?
(examples: Resupply ISS with Cargo; Strategic Bombing – Nuclear attack on enemy military
installations) __________________________________________________________
• How will the system accomplish its objectives?(Example: Aircraft loaded with internal
precision guided weapons based flying at a transonic Mach number at 500 feet above ground to
evade enemy radar)
__________________________________________________________________________
• The mission may be defined through one or a set of scenarios or operational
profiles ______ (Example: Scenario #1 – nuclear war between USSR and NATO, Scenario #2 –
Tactical conflict or police action between US and small country etc.)
_______________________________________________________
• Identify the dynamics of the system operating characteristics – (example: Rapid,
precision maneuvering to avoid obstacles at 500 feet above ground level at Mach 0.85 up to 3
G’s. Rapid opening / closing of Bombay doors for weapons release to minimize time of increased
radar cross section
)____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
• Mission Profile Sketch: (add detail to your sketches from chart 1.4-1) Cruise altitude 40 Kft
Cruise altitude 40 Kft Aerial
refueling ENEMY AIRSPACE
Land at
30 Kft alternate
NATO air base base, 8 hour
M= 0.85, 500 ft alt typical mission
penetration
Weapons Release
Team
Logo 5.1-1b Mission Profile # 1 - Resupply ISS (sketch) Customer
Logo
Typical 2nd Gen. Reusable Launch Vehicle - Two Stage to Orbit
Payload
Deployment
Altitude ~ N-miles
Orbit Insertion Mini-Orbiter

Separation
Orbiter
Mini-
Re-entry
Booster Booster Glide Orbiter
Separation Back to Launch Re-entry
Site
Launch
Booster Orbiter Landing
Landing
Mini-Orbiter Landing
Time ~ Minutes.
1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering
Week #4 - 28
The ISS is resupplied with cargo and crew using all re-usable system components
Week 4 – 15b
Team
Logo 5.2 Performance and Physical Parameters Customer
Logo
Definition of the operating characteristics or functions of the system (e.g., size,
weight, range, accuracy, bits, capacity, transmit, receive):
What are the critical system performance parameters and requirements?
• (ex. 1 Aircraft length shall not exceed 165 ft. to fit into existing hangars)
• (ex. 2 Aircraft Max GTO wt. shall not exceed 475 Klbs to use existing runways)______
• (ex. 3 Enemy airspace penetration Mach number =0.85 at 500 AGL for 4,000 mile
unrefueled range to evade radar )
• (ex.4 Able to take off /land on runway lengths at all NATO airbases at 425,000 MTOW)
• (ex.5 Capable of carrying 24 SRAM nuclear missiles or 84 conventional 1,000 bombs)
• (ex.6 capable of aerial refueling up to 35,000 ft. altitude at Mach 0.3-0.5
• (ex. 7 Carry 84 Laser-guided 1000 lb. bombs___________________________
• _________________________________________________________________
How are they related to the mission scenario(s)?
• (examples 1-6 required for Mission #2- Nuclear weapons delivery strategic bombing)
• (ex.4 & 7 required for Mission # 1 tactical bombing )
________________________________________________________________
• _________________________________________________________________
• ______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Example: Performance and Physical Parameters -
Arch #1 Expendable Booster Solutions Arch #2
Key Performance & Physical Parameters:
• Sizing missions (NExT) 32.8'
– 88 klbs payload to 28.5° x 220 nm

82.2'
– 176 klbs payload to 28.5° x 200 49.4'
nm
• Expendable concepts
– 1.5 stages
– Lox/RP boosters with RD-180s 253.6'
– Lox/H2 core with RS-68 (88 klbs)
or SSME-like engines (176 klbs)
• Payload Volume
~2'
– 20 ft x 50 ft (88 klbs)
– tbd x tbd ft (176 klbs)
88 klbs Heavy lift systems are driven 176 klbs

Expendable by monolithic payload delivery Expendable 58.3'
Week #4 - 30
Week 4 – 16b
Team
Customer
Logo 5.3a Operational Deployment or Distribution Logo
Identification of the quantity of equipment : (# of aircraft, associated tow trucks, bomb

installation carts, ground power carts, launchers, etc…), software, personnel, facilities
(# of hangers, payload integration facility, rocket to pad transporter, ground fuel
storage tanks, etc., and the expected geographical location to include transportation
(by rail from factory to launch site, etc.) and mobility requirements:
How much equipment and associated software is distributed, and where is it to be
located? (examples: 1. Total 66 aircraft distributed to 7 air bases in US and 1 airbase in the
Philippines, 2. 5 aircraft tow trucks at each base, 3. 10 bomb loading carts at each air base, 4. 2 RP-3
fuel storage tanks at each base, 5. etc. 6. etc.
• ________________________________________________________________
• ________________________________________________________________
• ________________________________________________________________
When does the system become fully operational?
– (ex. Aircraft #1 to #10 operational in 1989; Aircraft # 11-# 25 operational in 1990,
Aircraft # 26- # 50 operational in 1991, Aircraft # 51-66 operational in 1992.
• ________________________________________________________________
• _________________________________________________________________

5.3b - Operational Deployment Locations (ex.: SLI RLV System )
- Provides capability to deliver crew and supplies to & from the Space Station ISS Orbit @ 52deg
5. Int.
Space
Station
Subsystem
Orbit Transfer
2. Earth-to Orbit Vehicles
Crew and Cargo:
Subsystem ISS and LEO
Cargo Human Platform Transfer Advanced
Delivery Mission Stage Propulsion
Configuration Configuration ISS and Platform Transfer
4. On-Orbit Cargo Delivery Vehicle
Subsystem TDRSS
GPS On-orbit
3. Space Support
Infrastructure Subsystem
Ground Tracking
1. Ground Support & Control
KSC, Florida & Infrastruct. Subsys. Africa, Asia, US
Alt. landing sites Off-Line Payload Vehicle and Payload
Processing Facility Integration Building
Launch
Maintenance
Mission Ops Hanger
Crew
Support Room To Launch Pad
Training
JSC Houston, Tx,
JSCWeek
Support ShopsHouston,
1/18/2021 & Contractors locations
Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering and Offices #4 - 32
KSC, Fl. Launch: KSC, Fl. Tx,
Week 4-17b
Week 4 – 17b
Team
Customer
Logo 5.4 Operational Life-Cycle Logo
Anticipated time that the system will be in

operational use:
• What is the total inventory profile throughout the
system life-cycle? Plot of # produced/month or # produced vs.
Date Total
# of Units
manufactured/ Number
month produced
or
# over life time
Manufactured
1986
= XXX
Year 1992
• Who will be operating the system and for what

period of time? (Ex. US Air Force, 30 years+)

Team
Logo 5.5 Utilization Requirements Customer
Logo
Anticipated usage of the system and its elements: (e.g., hours of
operation per day, percentage of total capacity, operational cycles per
month, facility loading):
• (ex. During Mission Scenario #1 – 63 bombers fly 4 sorties each over a
two day period)
• (ex. Training missions scenario #3 : 4 bombers per day operating for 12
hours each)
________________________________________________
• Etc.__________________________________________________
How is the system to be used by the customer or operator in the field?
• (ex. Mission #1 Pilot and weapons officer fly aircraft at high altitudes through
Anti-aircraft fire, and deploying chaff decoys to divert SAM missile threats to
enable dropping iron bombs on fixed land targets)
• (ex. Mission #1 Night missions utilize GPS guidance with radar and infrared
sensors to identify tactical moving targets for firing guided missiles)
• (ex. Mission #2 Nuclear weapons delivery missions fly at Mach 0.85 at <500 ft.
AGL to evade radar, with structural mode control dampers activated)
Team
Customer
Logo 5.6 Effectiveness Factors Logo
System effectiveness requirements specified as figures-of-merit (FOM’s)

(such as cost or system effectiveness, operational availability, readiness rate,
dependability, logistics support effectiveness, mean time between
maintenance, failure rate, maintenance down time, facility utilization, operator
skill levels and task accomplishment requirements, and personnel efficiency)
• _____________________________________________________
Given that the system will perform, how effective or efficient is it?
• (ex. Readiness simulation models predict satisfying the FOM 95%
availability at 10 minute warning time requirement)
• (ex. Similar previous aircraft auto- maintenance equipment that will be used
on this new design has demonstrated the FOM 1 hour turn-around time)
How are these factors related to the mission scenario(s)?
• (ex. 95% availability rate required for Mission #2- Nuclear Weapons Delivery
• (ex. 1 hour turn around time (re-arm and re-fuel) required for Mission #1 – Tactical
convensional weapons delivery

Team
Customer
Logo 5.7 Environment Logo
Definition of the environment in which the system is expected
to operate (e.g., temperature, humidity, artic or tropics,
mountainous or flat terrain, airborne ground, dust storms, hail, or
on-shipboard salt spray). This should include a range of values
as applicable and should cover all transportation, handling, and
storage modes:
• (ex. Temp range -230 deg F to +250 deg. F)____________
• ___________________________________________________
• __________________________________________________
How will the system be handled in transit? (ex. Satellite loaded on
truck-bed with crane operator impact pulse of 2 g’s one time, travel from factory to
launch site with road vibration levels up to 50g’s at Freq. 10- 100 hz. for 36 hours,
assume 3.5 g’s impact pulse when loading sat onto launch vehicle payload bay.)
• _______________________________________________________________
What will the system be subjected to during operational use,
and for how long?
• (ex. Rocket launch 100g’s vibrations at Freq 200-1000 hz. for 10 minutes and 2
discrete 3g’s stage separation shocks pulses. Micro-meteorite impacts 10 per
hour and Radiation a xx Rads/hour over total operational life )
• ____________________________________________________________

Example of Environmental Impact on
System Design in Operational Environment
International flight trainer aircraft:
• FAA certification as an export product requires operation in 130 deg
and 100% humidity (South East Asia environment)
• Fiberglass and foam material used in aircraft prototype structure and
flown in certification flights would absorb ~ 1.5% extra water weight
in this heat and humidity environment
– Freezing expansion of this entrapped water in the skins could also
cause delamination from foam core structure
• FAA required additional structural factor of safety on structure that
would result in increased weight and material cost
• Resulted in change of structural material for production aircraft
which was not flight demonstrated in prototype flight tests impacting
production proposal evaluation

0- 5 ** Oral
0-5 ##
0. Title page


trades x 5
11. Summary
Total Scores
Total Score
** 5=1/18/2021
0= missing chart
Team
Logo 6.0 Maintenance & Support Concept Diagram
• Draw a sketch similar to Figure 3.14 in Blanchard
• Illustrate where the system is operated and arrows connecting to the various maintenance sites
(airport, depot, sub-system repair facilities, disposal yard, etc.) and arrows connecting to the key
facilities where the spare parts are stored and distributed, and any disposal facilities for damaged
or worn-out parts.
• At each site, add brief descriptions of what type of maintenance function is performed there
(Overhaul, calibration, manufacturing, repair of damage, preventive maintenance, etc.etc.)
Intermediate Airports
LAX Denver Dallas New York

Aircraft end of flight day Aircraft end of flight day
Maintenance Depot
Chicago Atlanta Atlanta Airline Central parts storage
(Airline hub1)
•Preventative Maint.
Maintenance Depot
•Structural repairs Parts manufacturers
(Airline hub2)
•Engine overhauls Engine repair/overhaul

•Engine Upgrades Florida Center (Pratt & Whitney) Other Week #4 - 39
•Engine disposal

End of Week 4
Home Work Due Week 5, DRAFT Team Charts
In your teams, using power point, define your system project’s:
(Show all statements and questions as bold headers, and just fill in the answers)
– Chart 5.1-1,-2,etc. Design Reference Missions (one chart for each mission)
– Chart 5.2 Performance and Physical Parameters
– Chart 5.3a Operational Deployment or Distribution
– Chart 5.3b Operational Deployment Diagram (can show a world map indicating
the locations of the air bases, launch sites, etc. where the system will be based
and operated).
– Chart 5.4 Operational Life-Cycle
– Chart 5.5 Utilization Requirements
– Chart 5.6 Effectiveness Factors
– Chart 5.7 Environment
– 6.0 Maintenance and Support Concept Diagram
– Update of 2.0 Org Chart with a head shot pic of each team member next to a box
where they are a lead, only one pic each
– Chart 2.1

Start Week 5

Course Outline
Conceptual System
3.1, 5.1-5.7, 6.0
Fences Article
5
& 4b,7a,b, 8a,b, Quiz #1? 5.1-5.7,6.0
Technical Writing,
CoDR/SDR DRAFT
10.0, 11.0
D2

0- 5 ** Oral
0-5 ##
0. Title page


trades x 5
4a, b, c. Work Breakdown Structure x3 X 3=
11. Summary
Total Scores
Total Score
** 5=1/18/2021
0= missing chart
Work Breakdown Structure in
Conceptual Design Phase
• 2 types:
– Functional
• Things you do to start the design process (Verbs!)+ SE +
Management
• usually used in early Conceptual Design
– Product
• Hardware + software (Nouns!) + SE + Management
• after you have some architecture concepts roughly defined
• What should be included in the WBS?
“ Everything that costs the program manager money and everything it
takes to do the mission” (Prof. Dobbs)

Team
Logo 4.0a Functional Work Break Down Customer
Logo
Structure Partial Example

0.0
SLI System
ETC…
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Systems Mission Subsystems Technology Program
Engineering Design Design Development Management
Risk Reduction
2.1 7.0 8.0

Mission Maintenance Manufacturing
1.1 1.2
Operations Concept Concepts
Requirements Architecture
Design Design Development
Analysis Candidates
Definition &
Trades AOA
1.4 2.2
1.3
Etc. Etc.
Etc,

Team
Customer
Logo Logo
4.0a Functional Work Break Down Structure

Defining the processes and doing the design process, implement at beginning of
Conceptual Design phase before the system architecture designs are defined

Team
Logo 4.0b Product Work Break Down Structure Customer Logo
Arch #1 Breakdown what the design is (hardware and software)…
Legend: Highlight the
boxes that have a
different design than 0.0 ________ System
the other
architectures
Etc
…
1.0 Systems 2.0 3.0 4.0 5. .0

Engineering Vehicle Operations Maintenance Manufacturing
(Facilities and Tools
and Processes )
4.1 4.2
2.1 2.2
Facilities Procedures &
Tools
6.0
Program
Management

Team
Logo 4.0b Product Work Break Down Structure Customer Logo
boxes that have a
different design than
0.0 ________ System
the other
architectures
Etc
…
1.0 Systems 2.0 3.0 4.0 5. .0

and Processes )
4.1 4.2
2.1 2.2
Tools
6.0
Program
Management

Team
Logo
4.0b Product Work Break Down Structure Customer
Logo
boxes that have a
different design than
0.0 ________ System
the other
architectures)
Etc
…
1.0 Systems 2.0 3.0 4.0 5. .0

and Processes )
4.1 4.2
2.1 2.2
Tools
6.0
Program
Management

Technical Performance Measures
• TPMs are usually from derived requirements and attributes at a level
below system level FOMs.
• The identification of TPM evolves primarily from the development
of system operational requirements and the maintenance and
support concepts.
• The objective of the TPM is to influence the system design
process, to incorporate the right attributes/characteristics to produce
a system that will ultimately meet the customers expectations.
• TPM are often contradictory when it comes to determining the specific
characteristic that must be incorporated into the design so they must
be ranked by importance.
• The designer needs to understand which are more important than
others and, if a trade-off has to be made, where in the design
compromises must be made in order to meet a higher level
requirement.

Typical Tactical Aircraft TPM
• Maximum taxi design weight • Infrared emissions
• Weight (empty) • Radar cross section
• Maximum flight design weight • Singularly vulnerable components
• Payload weight (internal) • Mean Time Between Maintenance
• Payload weight (external) (MTBM)
• Range (basic mission) • Mean Down Time (MDT)
• Sustainable speed at high altitude • Operational Availability (Ao)
• Sustainable speed at low altitude • Reliability
• Penetration speed (basic mission) • Useful life
• Takeoff distance (standard day) • Escape system performance
• Takeoff distance (hot day)
• Landing distance (standard day)
• Excess thrust at maximum flight
design weight

Team
7.0a Prioritization of TPM
Customer
Logo Logo
Ex. “Wingman” UAV
Technical Performance Quantitative Requirement (Metric) Current Benchmark Relative Importance

Measure (Competing System) Ranking
Turn-around Time (days) 1 hr. (maximum) 3 hr. 3
Max Mach @ 30,000 ft. 1.8 (minimum) 0.87 1
Operational Availability 98.5% (minimum) 90 % 4
Size (feet) 10 feet long (maximum) 9 feet long 6
6 feet wide (maximum) 8 feet wide
4 feet high (maximum) 4 feet high
Human Factors Less than 1% error rate of ground 5% per year 7
pilot per year
Weight (pounds) 600 pounds (maximum) 750 pounds 2
Maintainability (MTBM) Every 300 flight hours (minimum) Every 150 flight hours 5

Team
Logo 7.0a. Technical Performance Measures
(TPM)
Technical Performance Measure Quantitative Current Benchmark Relative Importance
Requirement (Metric) (Competing System) Ranking
Maximum Mach Number at 35,000 ft. Mmax = 1.8 Mmax = 0.87 1

Team
7.0b- Mmax @ 30Kft. TPM Report Over Customer
Logo Logo
Conceptual Design Phase & Corrective Actions
(make a fictitious graph for just one TPM)
. . Re-program variable
Max Mach Number @ 30Kft.
. .
2.0
Maximum inlet wall scheduling
.
Actual Increase CFD Goal
mesh size
.
1.5
Most Likely
Re-design wing
.
sweep angles Minimum
1.1
Re-design fuselage
nose shape
0 CFD CoDR/
SRR CFD Wind Tech Wind Tech
SDR
12
Tech Tech Tunnel Rev. Tunnel Rev.
Review Review Test 1 3 Test 2 4
1 2
Time ~ Months
Wind tunnel tests revealed CFD drag analysis was inaccurate; three re-
1/18/2021 designs accomplished the TPM
Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals Mmax
of Systems goal = 1.80
Functional Analysis
A function refers to a specific or discrete action that is necessary to achieve a
given objective; that is, an operation that the system must perform, or a
maintenance action required to restore a faulty system to operational use.
During the Conceptual System Design phase the objective

to specify the whats and not the hows; that is, what needs
to be done versus how it is to be done.
The purpose of the functional analysis is to present an overall integrated and

composite description of the system’s functional architecture, to establish a
functional baseline for all subsequent design and support activities, and to
provide a foundation from which all physical resource requirements are
identified and justified; that is, the system’s physical architecture.

Format for Functional Flow Block
Diagrams
2.1.2 2.1.5
PARALLEL “Or” ALTERNATIVE

FUNCTION decision FUNCTION #1
2.1 2.1.1 2.1.4
REFERENCE 2ND LEVEL

AND
2ND LEVEL ___
~
BLOCK FUNCTION FUNCTION
?
2.1.3 2.1.6
PARALLEL ALTERNATIVE
FUNCTION FUNCTION #2
4.2.3
INTERFACE
REFERENCE
2.1.1.1 2.1.1,2 2.1.1.3
3RD LEVEL 3RD LEVEL G

GO FLOW
FUNCTION FUNCTION
5.0 NG
NO-GO
FLOW

Anti-Missile System Maintenance
Functional Flow Diagrams
Antimissile
System :
Subsystems -
10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 •Spy Satellites
OPERATE SYSTEM CHECK BOOST AND G CHECK MEDCOURSE G CHECK TERMINAL G •Anti-missiles
IN USER POST BOOST DEFENSE
~
ENVIRONMENT LAYER
DEFENSE LAYER DEFENSE LAYER defense layer
• In orbit
G G G
~ SYMPTOM ~ servicing & repair
HOSTILE MISSILE PENETRATION OF auto-satellite
DEFENSE SHIELD EXCEEDS X% •In orbit logistics
20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 platform (spare
parts storage)
CHECK OPERATION\OF G CHECK OPERATION\OF G CHECK OPERATION\OF G CHECK OPERATION\OF G
~
SPY SATELLITE A SPY SATELLOITE B SPY SATELLOITE C SPY SATELLOITE D
G G G G
~ ~ ~
FAULTY C MODULE
CONFIRMED
NO
20.3.1 20.3.2 20.3.3 20.3.4
EXTRACT SPARE MODULE TRANSPORT SPARE MODULE
REMOVE AND REPLACE CHECK OPERATION OF
FROM LOGISTICS PLATFORM TO SATELLITE C PLANE X Working ?
FAULTY MODULE SATELLITE C
AND LOAD ON OMV USING OMV
20.3.7 YES
20.3.5 20.3.6 20.3.8
TRANSPORT FAULTY MODULE
TRANSPOORT FAULTY MODULE REPAIR
TRANSPORT FAULTY MODULE TO GROUND INTERMEDIATE
TO LOGISTICS PLATFORM FAULTY
TO EARTH VIA SPACE SHUTTLE LEVEL MAINTENANCE
AND LOAD ON OMV MODULE
FOR REPAIR
20.3.9
RETURN REPAIRED
MODULE TO on-orbit Logistics
Platform Robotic “Orbital Express” in-space repair capability enables
INVENTORY AS A SPARE
defense
Aerospace shield restoration
Engineering-Fundamentals in less than one day
of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 57
1/18/2021
Team Customer
Logo 8.0a System Functional Flow Breakdown Logo
With Requirements Operations- Mission #
TR 4.0-1 Engine must be replaceable in 30 minutes
TR 3.0 –1 All subsystems must be “green” before flight
Requirements TR 4.0-4 Total turn time for refuel and re-loading <1 hour
TR 3.0-2 Inflight refueling capable with KC-135 & KC-10
TR 4.0-5 Structural repairs performed at a hub maintenance depot
Etc.______________________________________ Etc. ___________________________________
Op. Track &

5.1 report loc
Op. System Op. Take-off & Op.
1.0 Check-out ___
Passed. YES
3.0 climb to 4 cruise to
AND
of enemy
aircraft
before fight. cruise combat zone
? altitude.
Op. Engage
NO 5.2 enemy
aircraft.
Ma. Return to Op. Re-group YES Op.
1.0 maintenance 6.0 with ___
Low fuel
7.0
Rendezvous
with tanker &
hanger for repair squadron
? refuel
6.0
NO
Ma Op. Seek additional etc…

Repair aircraft 8.0
2.0 sequence 1 targets of x.x
opportunity
Go to
Chart
8b
Legend: Example for 8a

in red, remove and do
your own
Ref: Blanchard 3.1.7.1 & .2
Team Customer
Logo 8.0b System Functional Flow Breakdown Logo
With Requirements – Scheduled Maintenance
TR 4.0-1 Engine must be replaceable in 30 minutes
TR 3.0 –1 All subsystems must be “green” before flight
Requirements TR 4.0-5 Structural repairs performed at a hub maintenance depot
TR Etc.______________________________________ Etc. ___________________________________
Ma Track &
Etc. report loc
Ma Check manual Op. Return Ma
1.0 for scheduled ___
Maint. Due?
No
3.0 vehicle for x.x Etc.
AND
of enemy
aircraft
maintenance. operations
? Ma Engage
Yes Etc. enemy
aircraft.
Ma. Ma etc. NO YES Ma
2.0
Return vehicle to
maintenance hanger
x.x ___
etc.
x.x
etc.
?
x.x
Ma Ma Repair in hangar MA etc MA etc…

Visual System 4.1
3.0 4.0 for flight 4.2 Go to
health inspection
worthiness x.x
Ma Perform A, B, or C Ma
Find YES 5.0 check Maintenance 6.0 etc…
NO
Go to visual
5.0 damage/ or
wear? YES Legend: Example for 8b
Ma A Check – NDE Ma B,C Check –
NO 5.1 inspect for 5.2 Fly to Go to
in red, remove and do
Reparable
Go to in hangar
cracks, engine maintenance 6.0 your own, change box
blade wear, etc. depot
5.2 ? layout as needed
1/18/2021 Week #4 - 59
Ref: Blanchard 3.1.7.1 & .2
Function Allocation
• What hardware or software can be selected that will perform the
function reliably, effectively, and efficiently?
– Ex: Function - Carry cargo to International Space Station
– Alternatives: 1. 2.
1. Cargo Pod vs.
2. Cargo compartment added to Crewed Vehicle
– Answer: cargo allocated to a separate Cargo Pod
• More effective – larger cargo lbs and volume
• More efficient – did not need added cost of crewed flight to deliver cargo
• Safer – less crew flights means less exposure to danger for the crew
• How can new functional requirements be added without adding
new physical elements to the system structure?
 System elements with similar functions may be grouped
 System elements should be as independent as possible
 In breaking a system down into subsystems select a configuration in
which the communications between the subsystems is minimized

Functional Allocation to WBS on Chart 4.0c
– Conceptual Level
• Identify the key functions that you have identified from

Chart 8a (Ops.) and 8b (Maintenance) for allocation
Ex.: Op.1- System Check-out before fight.(from Chart 8a)
Op. 5.1 Track & report location of enemy aircraft
Ma. 1 Repair sequence 1
Ma. 2 Remove and replace engine
etc….
• Allocate the key functions to the sub-systems in your
WBS that are best to perform them (put function
reference numbers on the WBS subsystem and
component boxes). Can include the operations people,
scheduling, and other “soft” WBS elements as well as
the hardware elements
Team Customer
Logo 4.0c Functional allocation on the Product Work Logo
Break Down Structure (Copy 4.0b WBS, Functions from Chart 8a & 8b)
Key Operations & Maintenance functions allocated are: (4 Ops
minimum)
Op.1- System Check-out before fight.(from Chart 8a)
0.0 Tactical Aircraft Op5.1 – Track & report location of enemy aircraft.
System Key Maintenance functions (4 min. from chart 8b)
Ma.1 Repair sequence 1
Ma.2.1 Remove & Replace engine….etc..
1.0 Aircraft 2.0 Maintenance 3.0 Operations
3.1 Mission
2.2 Crew Planning office
1.1 Airframe 1.2 Propulsion 2.1 Maint. Bay
Chief Monitor
Ma..1
Ma 2.1 computer Op.1
3.2 AWACS
1.4 Avionics. 2.3 Logistics 2.4 radar aircraft
1.3 Flight crew Diag. Op.5.1
Op.1, Op.5.1 Ma..1, Ma 2.1 Carts 3.4 Ground
Radars
3.3 Combat
Op.5.1
Control Center
1.4.1 Computer. 1.4.2 Radar. 1.4.3 Radio. Op.5.1
Op.5.1, 5.2 Op.5.1

1/18/2021 Week #4 - 62
End of Week 5
Team HR #6-1 Due Week 6, DRAFT Team Charts
In your teams, using power point, define your system project’s:
(Show all statements and questions as bold headers, and just fill in the answers)
– Chart 4.0a Functional Work Break Down Structure, 4.0b Product WBS, 4c
– Chart 7.0a Technical Performance Measures (TPM), 7.0b
– Chart 8.0a System Functional Flow Breakdown- operations
– Chart 8.0b System Functional Flow Breakdown- maintenance
– Update of 2.0 Org Chart with a head shot pic of each team member next to a box
where they are a lead, only one pic each
• Team leads – upload Team HW #6-1

DRAFT Team charts:
4.0a,b,c; 7.0 a,b; 8.0 a,b;
to Bb>Course content by week#> Week 6>
Assignments> Team HW #6-1
Assignment, Due Week 6
• Team leads – upload Team HW #6-1
DRAFT Team charts:
4.0a,b,c; 7.0 a,b,c; 8.0 a,b;
to Bb>Course content by week#> Week 6>
Assignments> Team HW #6-1

End Week 5

Start Week 6
Course Outline
Conceptual System
3.1, 5.1-5.7, 6.0
Fences Article
5
& 4b,7a,b, 8a,b, Quiz #1? 5.1-5.7,6.0
Technical Writing,
CoDR/SDR DRAFT
10.0, 11.0
D2

Technical Writing
• Required for ABET accreditation
• See separate briefing on Blackboard:
Bb> Course Content…> Week6 -Aro2011L-
TechwritingHWexecSum_2021.pdf
• Individual HW#1 8-1:
– Exec Summary of your Team Project due
Week8, per requirements in briefing above

Start Week 6
0- 5 ** Oral
0-5 ##
0. Title page

3. Candidate Architectures/Feasibility analysis. FOM’s, &

trades x 5
X5= X5= Add Charts 3.2 thru 3.5
4.a,b Work Breakdown Structure x 3 & update Chart 3.1 with
5. Operational requirements x 7 X 7= X7= more details
11. Summary
Total Scores
Total Score
** 5=1/18/2021
0= missing chart
Example: Analysis of Alternatives/Trade Study Process Flow (Key Steps)
Air Force RLV System
Step 1. Define the Step 5. Quantify down-

Problem and Requirements selected alternatives
1. Acquisition cost
2. Cost of operations
Step 2. Establish 3. Performance
Evaluation criteria, FOMs & 4. Weight
analysis approach 5. Reliability
6. Producibility
7. Safety
Step 3. Develop – Etc
alternative
Solutions
Step 6. Order alternatives
(Trade Matrix)
relative to criteria
Step 4. Screen
Alternatives Step 7. Select best configuration, conduct CoDR/SDR
based on key criteria & define to level needed for PDR proposal
Scope of application of any one step will vary

1/18/2021
depending on a program’s current acquisition phase
Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 69
Step 1: Define the Problem and Requirements
Reusable Launch System
Mission Needs & Goals/Requirements
• Mission Need #1: Rapid Global Strike
– Orbit: Low Earth Orbit (LEO) (Once around)
Req’mts. – Payload: 15-40 k lbs (CAV Warheads)
– Turn around Time : 24 hours or less (to be competitive w/ bomber)
• Mission Need #2: Operationally Responsive Space Lift

– Orbit: LEO
– Payload: 12-18 k lbs East, 4 k lbs Polar (wide assortment)
Req’mts. – Turn around Time: 8 - 48 hrs
– Alert Hold Capability, Nearly All Weather Operations
• Goal: More affordable Space Lift (NASA & commercial)

– Payload: 25-60 k lbs
Req’mts. – Low Cost ($1000/lb) Access to Space
- Global Strike has most pressing need for rapid, low cost operations.
- Together, Missions
1/18/2021 may
Aerospace be enoughof Systems
Engineering-Fundamentals to justify RLS development.
Step 2. Establish Evaluation Criteria, FOMs &
Analysis Approach for Feasibility Analysis
• Criteria: Systems should be limited to a maximum size and
technology readiness to minimize development risk
• Figures Of Merit:
– Acquisition cost + value
– Cost of operations + value
– Performance + etc…
– Empty Weight
– Reliability
– Producibility
– Safety
• Integrated Design Analysis is required

– Weight Models are critical !!!
• Consistency in analysis of alternatives is more important than

absolute accuracy (apples to apples)
– individual designs done by separate organizations will raise more questions
than they answer (apples & oranges).
– Alternative comparisons done by separate organizations will be much more
useful
1/18/2021
If you’re not consistent building models and
Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 71
running trades, you don’t know much
Team 3.2 System Level Figures of Merit Customer
Logo & Key Evaluation Criteria (for Feasibility Analysis) Logo
( Minimum of 7 FOMs & KEC., from Chart 1.5b)
SLR # FOM # Description (Units) Target Value/or Importance Weight
characteristic Rank Factor =
WF
C0.0-1 1 Launch cost ($/pound payload) $1000/lb. 2 2.0
T0.0-1 2 Safety (Loss of crew/Total # of 1/10,000 1 3.0

missions)
M0.0-3 3 Commercial convergence (% of 40% commercial 5 1.0
commercial launches/year) Launches
T0.0-6 KEC 4 Maximum length (must use 360 ft. Go/No-GO Not
existing launch pads) = KEC 4 Key eval. Scored
Criteria use in
Chart
3.3a
T0.0-8 KEC 5 Required Technologies maturity TRL = 4 or above Go/No-GO Not
or FOM – TRL = KEC5 eval. Criteria Scored
5 (2nd use in
KEC an Chart
option) 3.3a
6 Etc…
7 Etc…

Team
Logo
3.2 System Level Figures of Merit Customer
Logo
(from Chart 1.5a)
SLR FOM Description (Units) Target Importance Weight
# No. Value/or Rank Factor
charact- 1st thru 7th WF*
eristic
1
* Lowest ranked WF = 1.0 ( most FOMS). If a FOM is twice as important as the lower ranked, then WF = 2, WF = 3.0 is max.
1/18/2021 Week #4 - 73
Step 3: Develop Alternative Solutions
Reusable Launch Systems
Rocket Systems (R)

Air Breather Systems (AB)
Vertical Takeoff (VT)
Horizontal Takeoff (HT)
We are examining all Architectures

Vertical Landing (VL)
with a consistent methodology
Example- Step 3: Alternative Solutions for Space Shuttle-
Straight Wing vs. Delta Wing; Single Booster vs. Multiple Boosters

Technology Readiness Levels (NASA)
1/18/2021
Identifies how mature a technology has been demonstrated to be
Technology
Readiness Definition Hardware Description Software Description Exit Criteria
Level - (TRL)
Scientific knowledge
Scientific knowledge
generated underpinning basic Peer reviewed publication of
Basic principles observed generated underpinning
1 properties of software research underlying the
and reported hardware technology
architecture and proposed concept/application
concepts/applications.
mathematical formulation.
Invention begins, practical
Invention begins, practical application is identified but is
application is identified but is speculative, no experimental Documented description of
Technology concept or speculative, no experimental proof or detailed analysis is the application/concept that
2
application formulated proof or detailed analysis is available to support the addresses feasibility and
available to support the conjecture. Underlying benefit
conjecture. Algorithms are clarified and
documented.
Analytical studies place the
Development of limited
Analytical and/or technology in an appropriate Documented
functionality to validate critical
experimental critical context and laboratory analytical/experimental results
3 properties and predictions
function or characteristic demonstrations, modeling and validating predicitions of key
using non-integrated software
proof-of-concept simulation validate analytical parameters
components
prediction.
A low fidelity Key, functionally critical,

system/component software components are
breadboard is built and integrated, and functionally Documented test performance
Component or operated to demonstrate basic validated, to establish demonstrating agreement with
4 breadboard validation in functionality and critical test interoperability and begin analytical predictions.
laboratory environments and associated architecture development. Documented definition of
performance predicitions are Relevant Evironments relevant environment.
defined relative to the final defined and performance in
operating environment. this environment predicted.
A mid-level fidelity
End to End Software
system/component
elements implemented and
brassboard is built and
interfaced with existing
operated to demonstrate
systems conforming to target
overall performance in a Documented test performance
environment, including the
Component or simulated operational demonstrating agreement with
target o software
5 breadboard validation in environment with realistic analytical predictions.
environment. End to End
a relevant environment support elements that Documented definition of
Software System, Tested in
demonstrates overall scaling requirements
Relevant Environment, Meets
performance in critical areas.
Predicted Performance.
Performance predictions are
Operational Environment
made for subsequent
Performance Predicted.
development phases.
A high-fidelity
system/component prototype
Prototype software partially
System/subsystem that adequately addresses all
integrated with existing Documented test performance
Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering
model or prototype critical scaling issues is built
6 hardware/software sytems demonstrating agreement with
demonstration in a and operated in a relevant
and demonstrated on full- analytical predictions
relevant environment environment to demonstrate
scale realistic problems.
operations under critical
environmental conditions.
A high fidelity engineering unit
that adequately addresses all
critical scaling issues is built Prototype software is fully
and operated in a relevant integrated with operational Documented test performance
System prototype
7 environment to demonstrate harware/software sytems demonstrating agreement with
demonstration in space
performance in the actual demonstrating operational analytical predictions
operational environment and feasibility.
platform (ground, airborne or
space).
The final product in its final The final product in its final
configuration is successfully configuration is successfully
Actual system completed
demonstrated through test and [demonstrated] through test
and flight qualified Documented test performance
8 analysis for its intended and analysis for its intended
through test and verifying analytical predictions
operational environment and operational environment and
demonstration
platform (ground, airborne or platform (ground, airborne or
space). space).
Actual system flight
The final product is The final product is
proven through Documented mission
Week #4 - 76
9 successfully operated in an successfully operated in an

successful mission operational results
actual mission. actual mission.
operations
Figures of Merit KC-X Competition…
Boeing’s View:
Ref.: Aviation Week Ad, Sept 13, 2010

Figures of Merit KC-X …
Airbus View….
Ref.: Aviation Week Ad, Sept 13, 2010

3.3a Feasibility Analysis: Step 4: Quick Screening of Alternatives Using
FOM Key Evaluation Criteria (KEC) :
FOM KEC 4 Max Height & KEC FOM 5 TRL time to maturity
(for other KEC’s can stretch the vehicle to represent a Go/NoGo for cost, or other parameter
like a bar graph )
360 ft Max
Maximum, allowed
Height for current
FOM4 KEC: Max Length (Feet)
launch pads
Arch. 1- RMLS RP 7k Stage ** Arch. 6 RMLS TJ/SJ **Arch. 7 - Boeing HTHL

Payload 15 klbs to LEO Payload 15 klbs Payload 15 klbs
Dry Wt 172 klbs Dry Wt 320 klbs Dry Wt Large klbs
GLOW 1,520 klbs GLOW 800 klbs GLOW Large klbs
FOM 5 KEC: TRL 9: Current Tech. - OK TRL 4: 6-9 years away - OK TRL 2: Needs tech break-thru -reject
**1/18/2021
Arch. 7 HTHL Air-breathers are too large for existing launch pads & Need Excessive
Week #4 - 79
Tech Development; Therefore Delete Architecture 7 from Trade Study

Team
Logo
3.3a Feasibility Analysis: Quick Screening of Customer
Logo
Alternatives Using Key Evaluation Criteria: _____ &
_(a 2nd KEC is optional)____
Key Eval. Criteria #1=

Maximum,
Or Minimum
FOMX KEC
= ________
(units)
Arch. x- _____________ Arch. y- _____________ Arch. z- _____________

Key FOM1= _________ Key FOM1= _________ Key FOM1= _________
FOM2= _________ FOM2= _________ FOM2= _________
FOM3= _________ FOM3= _________ FOM3= _________
Key Eval Criteria 2 (optional) =_ Key Eval Criteria 2 (optional) Key Eval Criteria 2 (optional)
=_ =_

3.3b Remaining System Candidate Architectures for AOA
Project: Air Force RLV
Need for System: Low cost Reusable Launch System Capable of Rapid Refurbish and re-launch to replace
costly expendable rockets System Architecture #1 System Architecture #2
Attributes: Attributes:
1. Two stage to orbit ___________ 1. Two stage to orbit ___
The 2
2. Current Technologies (low risk)_ 2. Medium Term Technology Devel.
remaining 3. LoX – RP liquid Propellant___ (Medium risk)
system 4. Separate Crew and Cargo 3. Turbo Jet/ Scram Jet Air
architectures modules breathing
include a 5. Vertical Take-off/ Horiz. 4. Combined crew and cargo____
range of low Landing__ 5. Vertical Take off/ Horiz. Landing_
__________________________ __________________________
and medium
Sketch Sketch
risk concepts
that help 2nd stage, fly back Payload Pod,
expendable 2nd stage scram jet , glide
ensure the final back, integrated payload
selected
system will
best satisfy or
exceed a the
system level
1st stage-fly back to 1st stage turbo/scram
requirements launch site jet , fly back
and meet the
Arch. 1- RMLS RP 7k Stage ** Arch. 6 RMLS TJ/SJ
schedule and Payload 15 klbs to LEO Payload 15 klbs
development Dry Wt 172 klbs Dry Wt 320 klbs
cost GLOW 1,520 klbs GLOW 800 klbs
constraints
1/18/2021
TRL 9: Current Tech. - OK TRL 4: 6-9 years away - OK Week #4 - 81
Example of Assessment of Alternatives Trade Study at
the System Architecture Trade Level
Boeing 787 - Point to point service Air Bus 380 – Point to hub to point
• Passengers: 290 to 330

• Range: 2,500 to 8,500 nm (20% less fuel burn vs • Passengers: 525 to 853
767 • Range: 8,200 nm .
• Ramp Weight: 0.36 lbs M to 0.54M lbs • Ramp Weight: 1.24M lbs
•Wing span: 170 to 203 ft. •Wing span: 262 ft.
• Mcruise: 0.85 • Mmo: 0.89
•Structure: 50% composites •Structure: 25% composites
•Operating cost per seat: 10% lower than • Operating cost per seat: 15-20 per cent lower than the
peer airplanes 747-400 , $50/seat-hr.
• Airport access (same as Boeing 767): • Airport access (very limited):
• Compatible with unmodified and - Limited to large airports, some requiring strengthened
medium sized airports; > 450 city pairs runways and added passenger terminal ramps; 140
• Can eliminate passenger plane regular service airports (400 emergency)
changes at hubs and fly directly to -Unmodified destination airports require passenger to
destination airports change to smaller planes at large hub airport
•$32B Boeing cost (2011), 1,300 break-even •$25B+ Airbus cost
•Orders of 3 models as of Jan 2020: 1,498 •Orders as of Dec 2019: 251 – Production stops 2021
Air Bus A380 will never make a profit due to poor conceptual design systems engineering trade down-select
Team
Logo
3.4a-1 Trade Matrix (Step 5) Customer
Logo
(min of 6 FOMs and 3 Architectures)
of Architectures that passed the Feasibility Screening
FOM’s (from Chart Acquisition Cost Operations Cost Performance: Lift-off
3.2)
< $400M < $70M per flight 23Klbs to LEO Weight
Wt. = 3.0 Wt. = 2.0 Wt. = 1.0 Wt.
Alternative
Architectures U W U W U W
Arch. #x 9 27 3 6 1 1.0 34
($350M) ($72M) (20Klbs)
Arch. #Y 3 9
($390M)
U = Utility Value: 9= Exceeds requirement >10%; 3= within +/- 10% of meeting requirement; 1= 11% to
15% worse than requirement; 0> 16% worse than requirement
W = Weighted Value = U * Wt; Wt= 2 means two times more important than the average FOM, etc.

Team
Logo
3.4a-2 Trade Matrix (Step 5) (min of 6 FOMs and 3 Customer
Logo
Architectures)
of Architectures that passed the Feasibility Screening
FOM’s (from Chart Acquisition Cost Operations Cost Performance: Weighted
3.2)
< $400M < $70M per flight 23Klbs to LEO Total
Wt. = 3.0 Wt. = 2.0 Wt. = 1.0 ΣW = Σ (U
Alternative x Wt)
Architectures U W U W U W
Arch. #x 9 27 3 6 1 1.0 34
($350M) ($72M) (20Klbs)
Arch. #Y 3 9
($390M)
U = Utility Value: 9= Exceeds requirement >10%; 3= within +/- 10% of meeting requirement; 1= 11% to
15% worse than requirement; 0> 16% worse than requirement
W = Weighted Value = U * Wt; Wt= 2 means two times more important than the average FOM, etc.

Team 3.4b: (Step 6) Quantify down-selected alternatives and Customer
Logo Order alternatives relative to FOMs from Trade Matrix Bar
Logo
Note: All values and rankings are notional

GraphFigure of Merit (FOM)
And are only for illustrative purposes only! 1. Acquisition cost 5. Reliability
2. Cost of operations 6. Producibility
3. Performance 7. Safety
4. Weight .
30
Total Total
Score = Score =
110 74
20
Figure of Merit Weighted Score
10
Arch 1 Arch 6

Team Customer
Logo 3.4b Quantify & Down-Selected Alternatives and Order Logo
Relative to FOM Scores (scores from Trade Matrix Chart 3.4a)
Figure of Merit (FOM)
1. _____________ 5. ____________
2. _____________ 6. ____________
3. _____________ 7. ____________
4. ______________ .
30
Figure of Merit Weighted Score
20
10
0
Arch 1 Arch 2
Main Message of this Aerospace

1/18/2021
chart Engineering-Fundamentals
…… of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 86
3.5 Selection of Best Architecture (Step7)
(Select best configuration, conduct SDR& define to level needed for a proposal)
• Selected: Arch. #1: VTHL TSTO Rocket (HC/HC)
Optimally Staged (Mach 7)
Acquisition Cost: $340M/ea Fwt empty: 11.3%
Operations Cost: $154M/flight Fwt pyld: 1.0%
Wt gross: 1,520 klbs Fus. Length: 93/66 ft
Wt empty: 172 klbs Span: 61 / 49 ft
Wt pyld: 15 klbs Stage Mach: 7
Wt fuel: 1,301 klbs T/W: 1.7 / 1.2
PF: 62.7 / 80.6% Technologies: TRL 7-9
• Key Rationale for Selection: The Arch #1 design approach of using

mature low risk propulsion technologies coupled with autonomous
system health monitoring and light weight composite structures and
proven thermal protection enable ops costs to be 10 % lower than other
architectures, and 61% lower than Space Shuttle with a 13% higher T/W
Our Arch #1 VTHL TSTO Operations costs are 61% lower compared to the
1/18/2021
Space Shuttle and meet or exceed all FOM thresholds Week #4 - 87
Team Customer
Logo 3.5 Selection of Best Architecture Logo
Project Title ___________________
• Architecture Selected & Description:
Pic
of
Sys
tem
• Key Rationale for selection:

__________________________________
_________________________________

0- 5 ** Oral
0-5 ##
0. Title page


trades x 5
4a, b, c. Work Breakdown Structure x3
11. Summary
Total Scores
Total Score
** 5=1/18/2021
0= missing chart
• Now Summarize all of Your System
and Derived Requirements from
your previous charts in a System
Specification on Chart 9
• The 6 headings in the system spec

may also show you requirements
that you missed defining

Team Customer
Logo 9. System Spec – (name of system)__ Logo
The system concept will be designed to achieve these requirements: (summarize requirements
statements with a measurable value or metric from previous charts. Add any you previously
missed!)
1. Design Reference Missions (from chart 5.1):
1.1
1.2
1.3
2. System Level Requirements (from chart 1.5a, Cost, safety, survivability, max payload wt, etc.)
2.1 Req # (from chart 1.5a) - Requirement statement with measurable value
3. Environmental Requirements (from chart 5.7, Temp, humidity, salt air, radiation, rail transport vibration, threats, etc.)
3.1
3.2
3.3
4. Mission & Performance requirements (from chart 5.1 & 5.2) Wt., range, max speed, loiter time, payload wt.,RCS ,
etc.)
4.1
4.2
5. Utilization and Operational Requirements (from chart 5.3, 5.5 & 5.6; land or carrier basing, launch site, launch date,
fatigue life, cost per passenger seat-mile, etc.)
5.1
5.2
5.3
6. Maintenance and Support Requirements (from Chart 6; number and locations of maintenance hubs, MTBM, down
time, maintenance cost/flight, number of ground diagnostic carts per aircraft, system health checkout prior to launch, disposal, etc.)
6.1
6.2
6.3

Team 10.Conceptual/ System Design Review Customer
Logo Document Compliance Matrix
Logo
Document Section Compliance Author initials Page

? Yes, number
Partially, No
0. Title page
1.1 Needs analysis, 1.2 Goals, 1.3 Objectives;1.4 DRM’s; 1.5a System Level
Requirements , 1.5b System FOM - Attributes, 1.5c Derived Requirements,
1.6 System Life Cycle x 8
2. Organization Chart – Conceptual design 2a, 2b – Responsibilities. Score x 2
3. Trade Study: 3.1 Candidate Architectures, 3.2 Sys.Level FOMs 3.3 Feasib.
Ana.: Step 4; 3.4a Trade Matrix; 3.4b Quantif. & Down Select (Bar chart) ; 3.5
Select Best Arch. & Rationale statement. Score x 6
4. Work Breakdown Structure – 4a. Functional, 4b. Product, 4c. Product +
Functional Allocations. Score x 3
5. Operational requirements: 5.1 DRMs, 5,2 Perf & Phy Param, 5.3a Ops
Deploym, 5.3b Ops Depl Diagram, 5.4 Oper. Life Cycle, 5.5 Utilit. Reqmts, 5.6
Effect. Facts., 5.7 Envirn. Score X 8
6. Maintenance & support concept diagram
7. Five Tech Performance Measures 7a – Table, 7b – Plot. Score x 2
8. Functional block diagrams 8a- Operations, 8b-Maintainance & Support

Score x 2
9. System spec
11. Summary
Team Customer
Logo 11. Summary (your sales pitch) Logo
• Key Benefits of our Chosen Architecture Design concept

(List in bullets what are the key SPECIFIC advantages or benefits of your chosen system architecture that may make it
superior to both the design you are replacing, and superior your other architecture concepts ? % less costly, etc.).
Examples:
– Delta IV chosen architecture will deliver 91% more payload to LEO compared to the current Delta II launch vehicle it will
replace primarily due to its RS-68 engines 20% higher Isp
– The Delta IV architecture #2 had 20% less launch cost that then the other architecture candidates in the trade study,
partially due to it’s bending strength from an iso-grid fuselage structural design allowing robotic tilting to vertical from the
horizontal transport vehicle reducing pre-launch crew by 40%
– Etc.
– P-51 chosen architecture has 60% longer range than the competing P-47 to ensure bomber escort to the target and back
by employing our patented “Laminar-flow” low-drag airfoil.
– Etc.
• Our Company’s Capability to do the job right

(why should the customer trust your company to deliver the product that meets the requirements on schedule and on cost?
Successful past products, our Engineering Experience, management skills, systems engineering processes, our new
technology developments, etc.)
Give PROOF to all claims about your team’s capabilities and experience.
Can use the real original company’s product history and famous engineers names
Also, You can “make it up ! (not an Ethics violation for this exercise!) Examples:
– Our company previously developed the Delta II launch vehicle on schedule and met the Air Force target development and
launch costs under our nationally recognized chief engineer Mark Peller
– Our engineering and business staff has an average of 21 years each, designing and developing successful advanced
space launch vehicles with a 99.35% mission success rate
– We applied Risk Analysis and formulated mitigation plans to identify and mitigate 6 key potential issues that could impact
our technical, cost, and schedule performance for the next Preliminary Design Phase
– Etc.
• What do you think?

(ask the customer for feed back on their reaction to your design concept)
Conceptual/ System Design Review
CoDR/ SDR
1. Provides a formalized audit of the proposed
system/subsystem design with respect to specification
requirements
2. Provides a common baseline for all project personnel
3. Provides a means of solving interface problems and
promotes the assurance that all system elements will
be compatible
4. Provides a formalized record of what design decisions
were made and the rational
5. Promotes a higher probability of mature design, as well
as the incorporation of the latest techniques &
technologies
6. Must pass the review to have permission to bid on the
Preliminary Design Phase
Could the stakeholder add value to the Conceptual Design Review? How?
Individual HW Tech Writing
Design Project Executive Summary
• Due Week #8: Individual HW# 8-1 Tech
writing Exec Summary
– You get an extra week to write the
assignment, BUT do not wait until week 8 to
begin writing it !

Team Homework
Due Week 7 and Week 8
• Due Week 7 : Team – submit to Bb DRAFT charts HW#7 Submit to Bb
CoDR/SDR DRAFT charts 3.2 thru 3.5; 9.0, 10.0, 11.0 for the Conceptual Design
Review
• Due Week 8 before class time (Week after next! Gives you more time to
prepare for CoDR/SDR Presentations) :
– Submit ALL your FINAL CoDR/SDR briefing in .PDF with page numbering to
Bb>Course Content by Week#> Week 8> CoDR/PRD Team Briefing.
– Assign which team member presents what charts and add names to charts
lower left corner; try to keep the work load the same for all team members
– Put time limit on each chart – 25 minutes total for each team presentation, you
cannot exceed your time allocation!
– Team leader is time keeper to cut off someone that goes too long.
– Practice your presentation
– Dress appropriately – look professional! Zoom CAMERAS ON!
– Present your Concept Design Review to the class
– Prepare to receive “constructive” feed-back (No hurt feelings)
– All students will score the other team’s presentations = 50% of the total team
score.
1/18/2021 Week #4 - 96
Summary Week 6
 We learned about problem definition and need analysis.
 We learned about feasibility analysis.
 We examined what operational requirements contain.
 We looked at some typical Technical Performance
Measures.
 We looked at functional analysis, functional flow block
diagrams, and functional allocation.
 We examined the trade-off analysis process and down-
selected to a final chosen architecture to carry into
Preliminary Design.
 We reviewed the content of a Conceptual Design Review
(or “System Definition Review” if NASA), that you will
present Week 8.
Think System!
Print-out 4 copies of the following score
sheet to score the other teams on Week #8
• You will get credit for your individual scoring as a Homework assignment
• Note the rows with multiplication of the scores: “Score x 8”, etc.
• Total all scores for each column, cannot exceed 175 points and 350 max.
• Can be marked by hand with pencil, then scanned and emailed to your
team Lead #1 for summarizing into a final set of averaged scores
• The Team Lead #1 will upload the summary of team scoring of the other
teams using a provided spread sheet on Bb Week 9 assignments.
• Average of all Student scores = 50% of team grade; instructor score is the
other 50%.
• Do not have to include comments, they are optional, but use to guide your
scoring
• If your scores are significantly higher than the average, may indicate you
really did not pay attention and you will not get credit for scoring.
– (in the past a few students gave all teams 100% ! Not likely!)
• Subtract 4 points from the total score for every 1 full minute the team
goes past 25 minutes. But do not penalize for Zoom drop-out time
ARO 2011- ___, CoDR/SDR Team Presentation #1 Score Sheet, Scorer ________________
Score: Score: Comments
Team # = _____ Team Leader #1 ______________________________________ Tech Chart &
Content Oral Pres.
Subject __________________________________________ Date __________ 0- 5 ** 0-5 ##
0. Title page
1.1 Needs analysis, 1.2 Goals, 1.3 Objectives;1.4 DRM’s; 1.5a System Level
Requirements , 1.5b System FOM - Attributes, 1.5c Derived Requirements, 1.6
System Life Cycle Score x 8
2. Organization Chart – Conceptual design 2a, 2b – Responsibilities. Score x 2
3. Trade Study: 3.1 Candidate Architectures, 3.2 Sys.Level FOMs 3.3 Feasib. Ana.:
Step 4; 3.4a Trade Matrix; 3.4b Quantif. & Down Select (Bar chart) ; 3.5 Select
Best Arch. & Rationale statement. Score x 6
4. Work Breakdown Structure – 4a. Functional, 4b. Product, 4c. Product +

Functional Allocations. Score x 3
5. Operational requirements: 5.1 DRMs, 5,2 Perf & Phy Param, 5.3a Ops Deploym,
5.3b Ops Deploy Diagram, 5.4 Operational Life Cycle, 5.5 Utilit. Reqmts, 5.6 Effect.
Facts., 5.7 Environment. Score X 8
6. Maintenance & support concept diagram
7. Five Tech Performance Measures 7a – Table, 7b – Plot. Score x 2
8. Functional block diagrams 8a- Operations, 8b-Maint. & Support Score x 2
9. System spec
11. Summary
Sub-Total (175,175 max)
Instructor Total (350 max) Stud. Ave Total
** 5= Showed Complete key content, 4= most , 3 = about half, 2= less than 50% , 1= little content, 0= missing chart
0= missing chart
Back-up

System Feasibility Analysis
- Set up the design problem…
Architecture Has 4 Integrated Sets of Subsystems (or “Elements”)
That Must Be Simultaneously Traded
 Typical Architecture NASA Unique
– Booster Transfer Stages
– Orbiter Commercial
Second
Stage On-Orbit Vehicles Transfer Stages
– Payload Module
On-Orbit
– CTV - Mini Orbiter
– Orbit Transfer Vehicles Earth- Infrastructure
– Assured Access ELV to-Orbit

– Support Infrastructure Vehicles Develop Trade
– Ground Operations and Mission First
Stage
Networks
Planning
Mission
Planning
Ground
Ops
Operations & Support Flight
Ops
Ground
Infrastructure
Architecture: an integrated set of elements consisting of earth-

to-orbit vehicles, on-orbit vehicles, ground-based operations and
support, and ground/on-orbit support infrastructure, designed to
service selected missions with Aerospace
1/18/2021 commercially profitable operating
Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 101
revenues at an acceptable level of safety.
Week 4 – 12-b
FOM’s (Figures of Merit)
• What is a FOM?
– Usually a requirement that is selected as a sub-set of the System Level
Requirements in Chart 1.5a (from the Customer RFP)
– Selected based on the SLRs that are key system “DESIGN DRIVERS”, not just a
“GO DO” (“Design” includes operations, performance, and physical characteristics)
– Used for the Architecture trade study (AoA) evaluation criteria (Charts 3.2-3.4)
– The system design ATTRIBUTES (a use of a technology, an innovative design
approach, a maximum size, a material selection, etc.) are then formulated to meet
the FOM value or characteristic; these ATTRIBUTES become the Derived
Requirements in Chart 1.5c
– FOMS, like ALL Requirements, Must have a TOPIC, A VALUE or MEASURABLE
CHARASTERIC, and a CONSTRAINT (where it applies, at “cruise” altitude, etc.)
• Decompose all metrics (FOMs, TPMs, all very similar) into
metrics that have 3 types across the 3 dimensions:
1. Operational Metric (FOM) = Measure of Operational Effectiveness (MOE)
2. Functional Metric (TPM) = Key Performance Parameter (KPP)
3. Physical Metric (KSA) = Key System Attribute (Weight, Cost, Volume, Power
required, Heat dissipated, Vibe qual level, Temp qual level, etc.)
1/18/2021 FOMS are selected from the list ofofSystems

Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals theEngineering
RFP System Level
Week #4 - 102
Requirements based on being a key “Design Driver”
3.3a Feasibility Analysis: Step 4: Quick Screening ofAlternatives
Using Key Evaluation Criteria: Max Height & TRL time to maturity
360 ft Max
Maximum, allowed
Height for current launch
pads
KEY FOM1
= Size
(Feet)
Arch. 1- RMLS RP 7k Stage **Arch. 5- RMLS 304 4k ** Arch. 6 RMLS TJ/SJ **Arch. 7 - Boeing HTHL
Payload 15 klbs to LEO Payload 15 klbs Payload 15 klbs Payload 15 klbs
Dry Wt 172 klbs Dry Wt 150 klbs Dry Wt 320 klbs Dry Wt Large klbs
GLOW 1,520 klbs GLOW 750 klbs GLOW 800 klbs GLOW Large klbs
TRL 9: Current Tech. - OK TRL 6: 5-7 years away - OK TRL 4: 6-9 years away - OK TRL 2: Needs tech break-thru -reject
** HTHL Air-breathers are too large for existing launch pads & Need Excessive
1/18/2021 Tech
Week #4 - 103
Development; Therefore Delete Architecture 7 from Trade Study

Week4-5-6 Conceptual Design ARO2011L-2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week4-5-6 Conceptual Design ARO2011L-2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week4-5-6 Conceptual Design ARO2011L-2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamentals of Systems

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #4 - 1

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #4 - 2

Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #7 - 3

ARO 2011L Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #3 - 6

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #4 - 7

The SLRs come from the customer in the RFP,

ARO 2011L Week #3 - 9

• Synthesis and evaluation Level 1 Sub-system Derived Requirements

• Functional analysis and allocation

Commercial Sub- Components

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 14

1.1 Needs analysis, 1.2 Goals, 1.3 Objectives, 1.4 DRM’s, X 8= X 8=

2. Organization Chart – Conceptual Design

3. Candidate Architectures/Feasibility Analsis, FOM’s, & X5= X5=

4. Work Breakdown Structure

5. Operational requirements x 7 X 7= X7=

6. Maintenance & support concept

7. Five Tech Performance Meas’s

8. Functional block diagram

9. System spec (FOMS & Reqmts)

10. Compliance Matrix.

1.0 Chief 4.0 Work Breakdown 6.0 Maintenance &

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 16

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 17

Cost $1,000/lb 1,400/lb $1,500/lb

Falcon heavy Cost $204 /lb

System Architecture #1- System Architecture #2- System Architecture #3-

Attributes: Attributes: Attributes:

Single stage scram jet /rocket

for Feasibility Analysis

Need for System ________________________________________________________________________

System Design Approach #1 System Design Approach #2 System Design Approach #3

Attributes: ________________ Attributes: __________________ Attributes: ___________________

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 20

• Identify various possible system-level design approaches

Life-cycle considerations must be an inherent aspect of the

Design Design Design

• Define analysis goals

Define feasibility evaluation criteria-

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 22

• What are the anticipated type and quantities of

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineeering Week #4 - 23

1.1 Needs analysis, 1.2 Goals, 1.3 Objectives, 1.4 DRM’s, X 8= X 8=

3. Candidate Architectures/Feasibil. ana. FOM’s, & X5= X5=

4. Work Breakdown Structure

5. Operational requirements x 7 X 7= X7=

6. Maintenance & support concept

7. Five Tech Performance Meas’s

8. Functional block diagram

9. System spec (FOMS & Reqmts)

10. Compliance Matrix.

1/18/2021 Aerospace Engineering-Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Week #4 - 26

Orbit Insertion Mini-Orbiter

• Sizing missions (NExT) 32.8'

– 88 klbs payload to 28.5° x 220 nm

88 klbs Heavy lift systems are driven 176 klbs

Identification of the quantity of equipment : (# of aircraft, associated tow trucks, bomb

Main Message of this chart ……

Attributes: Attributes: Attributes: _____