See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256935404

Cost-Effective Mission Operations

Article  in  Acta Astronautica · July 1996

DOI: 10.1016/S0094-5765(96)00123-3

CITATIONS READS

6 170

3 authors, including:

Jozef C. Van der Ha

Satellite Mission Design and Operations
120 PUBLICATIONS   573 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Attitude Control of Spinning Satellites View project

Rigid body related problems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jozef C. Van der Ha on 25 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acia Asrrortuurrca Vol 39. No. l-4. pp 61-70. lY96
Copynght t 1997 Elsewer Scxence Ltd
Pergamon Prmted m Great Britam All nghts reserved
PII: SOO94-5765(%)00123-3 0094-5765!96 $I 5 00 + 0 00

COST-EFFECTIVE MISSION OPERATIONS

J. C. van der Ha
European Space Agency - European Space Operations Centre
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5,64293 Darmstadt, Germany

M. H. Marshall & J. A. Landshof

The John Hopkins University - Applied Physics Laboratory
John Hopkins Rd., Laurel, MD 20723, USA

Abstract system engineering process”*‘: this is a

The present paper identifies and evaluates the
various methodologies for performing cost-
effective mission operations within the general
framework of the ‘Faster. Cheaper, and Better’
paradigm. Emphasis is placed on the mission
system engineering process which represents the
overall context in which life-cycle cost-
eflectiveness must be measured. The paper
analyzes the mission system engineering process
in which ground system &sign and mission
operations are petformed and illustrates how the
characteristics of that environment determine
their costs. The most Hective cost-saving
management and engineering methods with
relevance to mission operations will be
evaluated. Specific characteristics will be
highlighted by reference to APL’s interplanetary
mission NEAR launched on February 17.1996.
Keywords: Mission operations, system
engineering, cost-effectiveness, NEAR
Copyright c 1997 Elsevier Science
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the present Paper is to identify,
evaluate and organize the various methodologies
which arc available at present for conducting
cost-effective mission operations. It is evident
that operations cost reductions in themselves are
counterproductive if they would result in larger
spacecraft design costs. Mission operations must
be considered as an integral part of the mission
consequence of the drive for overall life-cycle
cost-effectiveness which cuts across all
traditional barriers between the various mission
components such as mission design, spacecraft
and payload design, ground segment, mission
operations and data analyses.
It must also be recalled that in actual practice all
decisions affecting mission operations costs are
finalized well before the satellite is launched and
most of these decisions are made outside the
realm of operations during the mission,
spacecmft and payload design. Furthermore,
these decisions are often made with little
awareness of their impact on mission operations.
In order to achieve maximum costeffectiveness,
all components of a mission system architecture
(shown in Figure I) over its mission life-cycle
must be designed in concert within the mission
system engineering process.
This process identifies and analyses design
Ltd options and resource allocations over the
complete mission life-cycle and across all
mission components. The distribution of facilities
and activities over the different mission
components is a central part of the system
engineering process. Within the constraints
prescribed by the limited resources (in particular.
money and time), the system engineering process
must determine the most efficient use of the
available resources for achieving the mission
objectives while observing the mission system
architecture as a whole.

61
 Low-cost planetary missions

MISSION OBJECTIVES

MISSION DESIGN

Figure 1. Components of a Space Mission System Architecture

MISSION PROGRAMMATICS

EFFECTIYE MISSION SYSTEM

SCHEDULE ENGINEERING

EFFICIENT
of RISKS DOCUMENTATION

*RApiD SYSTEM - LEVEL

F+ROTO-_G IN’ERACTIONS

Table 1. Programmatic Features for Cost-Effective Onerations

The challenge of cost-effective mission design
and implementation may be formulated as
follows: ‘to increase effectiveness by optimizing
performance and minimbkg risks within the
prescribed resource limits’. General and absolute
statements on how much or how little operations
should cost can not be made: costs are mainly
determined by the type and objectives of a
mission, by the experiences and culture of the
mission management and operations center and
by the risks one is prepared (or forced) to accept.
Another important characteristic of costcffective
mission system design refers to the
implementation schedule. It has been
demonstrated by the NEAB and Clementine
missions that interplanetary missions with
focused and valuable objectives can be launched
within an interval of little more than 2 years after
project approval. A short implementation
schedule has tremendous repercussions on the
‘way of working and perhaps presents an even
greater challenge than low-cost on its own. It also
provides many crucial advantages above the
conventional longer schedules: for instance, it
provides more frequent mission opportunities for
the user community and more advanced
technology for the spacecraft designers. Indeed,
it is one of the most critical ingredients of the
‘Faster, Cheaper, and Better’ philosophy!
 Low-cost planetary
PROGRAMMATIC COST
REDUCTION METHODS
Programmatics refers to the ‘context’ in which a
space mission system is designed, developed,
tested, launched, and operated. It includes many
elements for potential cost reduction which by
necessity are out of the hands of the space system
developers and operators. The entries identified
in Table 1 represent the essential elements of the
mission programmatics which generate an
environment in which cost-effectiveness can be
achieved.
Short Imdementation Schedule
A short implemenrarion schedule means that the
time between mission approval and launch is not
more than 2 to 3 years (for small interplanetary
missions). Such a schedule can normally be
achieved only when the payload instruments are
already available. A short schedule is beneficial
for the user as it enhances ‘mission turnaround’
and it provides significant advantages in terms of
the potential use of advanced technology both
on-board and on-ground. For instance, computer
hardware may be purchased fairly early in the
development cycle without fear of obsolescence
at the time of launch.
A short schedule is also an effective cost reducer
since indeed ‘time is money’ and not only in the
sense that the total staff cost is essentially
proportional to the implementation period. It is
also a fact that the work must proceed much more
efficiently under a fixed short schedule: when
there are many years of implementation phase, it
becomes too tempting to engage in many of the
typical time-filling ‘rituals’ such as extensive
studies, design refmements, unwarranted
perfectionism, excessive documentation, and
frequent reviews. Furthermore, it is easier to
maintain staff morale and continuity of expertise
over a short period of time. However, it must be
recognized that a short implementation schedule
is an enormous challenge and has severe
repercussions on all mission implementation
activities.
Finally, it should also be admitted that the
achievement of a short schedule imposes a
considerable burden on the engineering staff who
are expected to perform at peak level during at
least two years: the danger of staff bum-out must
mlbslon4 63
be taken seriously and all possible precautions
should be adopted.
1. Focused Objectives. The term
focused objectives refers to the clarity of ‘what
needs to be done’ so that cost savings will result
from avoiding the waste of effort involved in
working on the wrong issues. It is important that
every participant knows the objectives to be
accomplished in order that all can ‘pull in the
same direction’. It is crucial to have well-defined
and unambiguous objectives from the beginning
of the project: clear mission objectives and a
mature payload are the key enabling factors for
allowing system-level requirements to be fixed
early. A realistic implementation concept with
adequate cost and schedule margins should be
prepared and agreed. A reasonable potential for
de-scoping or relaxation of mission objectives
and/or system design requirements should be
kept in reserve in order to have the necessary
flexibility when financial, schedule and/or
technical problems are encountered.
A relatively low number (perhaps up to 5 or 6) of
payload instruments facilitates the system and
operations design by limiting the number of
simultaneous constraints to be taken into account.
Mature instruments allow to have early and
realistic baseline models for the required payload
resources in terms of power, on-board and on-
ground data handling requirements as well as
telemetry and command interactions, etc.
2. Acceptance of Risks. The phrase
acceptance of risks expresses the fact that
satellites are designed and operated with full a
priori knowledge that anomalies and failures may
occur. These events should be accepted as part of
an overall cost-effective strategy: the attempt at
eliminating the last few remaining elements of
risk in design and operations is extremely
expensive and there is a law of diminishing
return. Perfection is never achievable and an
estimated mission reliability increase from 0.95
to 0.96 may not be cost-effective for most
(unmanned) missions if disproportionate extra
costs were to be required. Small teams also
represent a risk due to the fact that every person
in the team is essentially indispensable within the
tight cost and schedule constraints.
Although a somewhat increased risk of in-orbit
failures induced by the unavoidable shortcuts in
the design and operations concepts should be
accepted, the identification and assessment of the
available risks must not be abandoned.
64 Low-cost
Responsible risk management should form an
integral part of a cost-effective satellite design
concept: the inherent risks should be evaluated
before they are accepted or not as the outcome of
a cost-benefit trade-off. Specific spacecraft
autonomy characteristics (e.g., robust safe
modes) should ensure satellite survival in case of
on-board and on-ground anomalies. Finally, it
should not be overlooked that many of the typical
low-cost characteristics like a short
implementation schedule, small and collocated
teams, design simplicity and resource margins
will in fact benefit the overall system reliability.
3. Rapid Proto-typing. A rapid proto-
typing approach consists of an early and quick
implementation of a rough incomplete model
representing the final product. This proto-type
will subsequently be refined and completed in an
iterated manner on the basis of the maturing
requirements, the evolving system design
baseline and the results of early stand-alone and
interface tests.
Conventional ‘waterfall’ approaches to system
development are typically slow, cumbersome,
and costly: Booch4 points out that they follow a
‘sacred, immutable process’ consisting of rigid
and sequential requirements definition,
specification development. preliminary design,
detailed design, fabrication, and test phases. Each
of these phases is usually driven by milestones
based on deliveries from one team to another
which enforces the ‘us against them’ attitude.
Furthermore, the products of each phase are often
‘written in granite’ and serve as a costly-to-
change input to the next phase.
Rapid pro-typing methods are characterized by
more tirne-effrcient and more flexible interactions
between the various phases of a development
cycle. They allow for a more natural incremental
and iterated evolution in the requirements and
design deli&ions resulting from intensive
interactions between users and developers.
Naturally, there are considerable risks in rapid
proto-typing, but there is simply no alternative
when faced with a two-year implementation
schedule.
Effective & CornDetentTeams
The presence of eficfive teams ensures that the
effort concentrates on the right type of activities
in addition to performing these in a capable
planetary mlsslons
manner. Knowledgeable and high-performance
staff, preferably with previous project
experience, should be recruited. A good strategy
is to build up an in-house dedicated core team
and to add the necessary specialized expertise by
hiring external specialists whenever and for as
long as needed.
1. Collocation of Teams. In order that
the mission system engineering methodology can
be executed in the most effective manner, it is
essential that the design and operations teams
(and preferably also representatives of the
science or users team) are all integrated and
collocated on a single site. This is crucial for
generating the synergy required for effective
system engineering. Collocation represents one
of the key aspects of the NEAR mission
implementation and operations at APL.
The replacement of strictly formalized interfaces
by more open communications leads to a faster
and more effective flow of information. This also
leads to an increase in mutual understanding
without any of the traditional ‘us against them
animosities. Collocation also offers natural
training opportunities for operations staff in a
cost-effective manner through participation in
design and test activities. Finally, it is extremely
beneficial to have the original design engineers
collocated on the operations site after launch
when contingencies develop.
2. Empowerment of Staff. Team
members should be given the maximum possible
empowerment meaning that decisional authority
should be delegated down to the lowest possible
level. A streamlined project organization has a
minimum number of organizational baniers and a
straightforward management structure in terms of
hierarchy and reporting levels. This reduces
overhead costs and is efficient as it helps to avoid
or reduce misunderstandings and time delays. In
this manner, the diffusion of responsibilities and
accountabilities which is fairly common in large
organizational structures may be eliminated.
While project and program management do need
adequate insight into the development and
operations process, excessive reporting is
counter-productive.
3. Efacient Team Interactions. The
inherent complexity of a system is largely
determined by the number and magnitude of the
teams to be coordinated, especially if these are
distributed over different organizations at various
sites. Reductions in the complexity of an
 Low-cost
organizational structure in terms of the number
and intensity of managerial and technical
interfaces will be beneficial for the overall cost
and reliability of the system. The important
message here is that effective, efficient
communications can best be established through
team -to- team interfaces, rather than through the
more typical team -to- management -to- team
interfaces. Regular progress and coordination
meetings also stimulate the necessary interactions
within a team and serve as a means to inform all
team members of the project status and the
relevant on-going issues.
Mission Svstem Engineering
Perhaps the single most effective measure a
project can take to lower the total cost of a space
mission is to strongly endorse mission system
engineering: it can only be implemented
effectively through the full support of the project
management. Someone ‘at the top’ must commit
to deciding the allocation of resources between
space mission elements based upon overall
mission effectiveness criteria.
Operations costs are strongly influenced by the
degree to which operations considerations are
taken into account in the design and development
of the space system3. A spacecraft designed to be
operable will be more reliable and will require
fewer ground resources to operate. Effective
design options should in general be preferred
above optimal ones, since the latter are usually
more time-consuming to define and more
complex to implement for often just a marginal
extra return. This is particularly true when
attempting to design payload operational
sequences under stringent resource constraints.
‘The better is the enemy of the good enough’ is a
good maxim of low-cost design.
1. Concurrent Engineering. The
simultaneous and interactive design and
development of two or more parts of a system
may be referred to as concurrent engineering.
Communications between the teams involved
must be intensive in order to be able to perform a
meaningful concurrent engineering approach and
to ensure that all points of view are given
adequate attention. Cost effectiveness comes
(indirectly) from the reduction in system
complexity and from the enhancement of system
reliability.
planetary mssions 65
A single system engineer should have full
responsibility for the mission system design and
be able to initiate and resolve the relevant trades.
In order that operational capabilities and
constraints will receive the attention required, it
is necessary that one or more experienced
operations staff participate in the system design,
implementation and test activities. In the case of
NEAR, two out of the eight operations engineers
worked directly with the spacecraft designers in
order to enhance spacecraft operability and to
document the spacecraft -to- ground system
interfaces’.
2. Efficient Documentation. There has
been a clear tendency in large space missions for
documentation to become an end in itself. What
counts in the end, however, is the fact that the
system itself is in good shape rather than the
documentation. The growth in documentation is
strongly related to the increasing management
complexity of large space missions. Every
management layer and every interface between
two teams typically levies its documentation
requirements, mainly as a ‘self-protection’
mechanism in case problems occur.
Documentation should be written only in as far as
it supports the design activities while requiring a
minimum of engineering time. The decision on
the necessity of specific engineering
documentation should perhaps be left up to the
engineering team leaders, not to program
management.
Documentation is useful for documenting and
maintaining requirements and design baselines.
As such it would follow the design process,
rather than drive this process as would be the
case in a traditional environment with strictly
sequential development phases. It is crucial that
documents should be kept as concise and as
compact as possible: view-graph style
documentation turns out to be very effective! It is
also essential that spacecraft operations manuals
(and also perhaps space-to-ground segment
interface documents) are written by the
operations staff in consultations with the design
engineers. This is an extremely valuable training
exercise and leads to a better product since
design engineers are understandably not aware of
and not interested in the specific operations point
of view.
3. System-Level Trades. Design trade-
offs must be conducted at the system-level,
consisting of spacecraft, payload, ground system
66 Low-cost planetary missions

and operations, rather than within one or two
particular elements of the overall system’. Trades
in system design and life-cycle costs, risks,
reliability and operability should be performed as
early as feasible during the mission design phase.
All teams involved in the project should be
represented in management coordination
meetings and design reviews in order to be able
to identify and execute the relevant trade-offs.
Significant savings may be generated by system-
level trades due to the fact that it allows to select
the overall cost-optima1 system design solution
rather than just a ‘parochial’ optimal one.

MISSION SYSTEM DESIGN

SPACECRAFT GROUND SYSTEM OPERATIONS

SYSTEM DESIGN CONCEPT

SKILLED TEAM
. RESOURCE OFF-THE- SHELF
MARGINS MULTI-MISSION
INFBAsTBucTuBE
ADHEBENCE to
OPERABILITY STANDARDS ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY
. ON-BOARD TEST & OPERATIONS
AUTONOMY AUTOMATION

Table 2. Svstem Design Features for Achieving Low Life-Cvcle Cost

SYSTEM DESIGN COST commissioning, initializations and calibrations

should he reduced as much as possible.
REDUCTION METHODS
1. Robust Spacecraft Design.
Table 2 provides a summary of the three
Spacecraft design robustness refers to the
elements of the mission system design which are
inherent flexibility, versatility and/or resilience of
most relevant to operations costs: they form the
the spacecraft system design. Although this is
environment for trade studies to be conducted
largely an ‘intangible’ characteristic, it is
during the life-cycle system engineering process.
extremely important, especially during and after
in-orbit failures: the absence or presence of
robustness may well be decisive for mission
SDacecraftSvstem Design failure or success. Sometimes, relatively minor
The spacecraft system design represents a critical changes in spacecraft or instrument design can
driver for operations costs. It is therefore significantly simplify operations and thereby save
important that operational capabilities and costs. For example, attitude control, thermal and
constraints are examined during the spacecraft power subsystem design robustness may
design process as part of the system engineering eliminate the need for complex maneuver
process. The complexity of spacecraft operations sequence preparation and monitoring.
control should be minimized: this refers to the 2. Resource Margins. Spacecraft
number of tele-commands, number of states, resource marginsrefer to the reserves in the on-
number of conditional relationships, number of board resources during critical operations phases.
flight rules, and the frequency and lengths of This includes on-board power and thermal
station contacts. The complexity of ‘one-of-a- capabilities, data storage and throughput, RF
kind’ operations control functions like signal strength, as well as processor memory and
 Low-cost
speed. During the design phase, adequate
spacecraft resource margins are essential in
providing ‘room’ for performing design trade-
offs. Sufficient resources should be available at
all times during operations in order to avoid the
introduction of complex constraints in the design
of sequences.
The provision of sufficient resource margins may
allow the detailed management of the on-board
resources to be eliminated or to be performed
autonomously on-board. Large on-board
memories and processor speeds will facilitate the
use of complex on-board stored command
sequences and the automation of instrument data
collection sequences. Margins always enhance
the flexibility in devising an operations concept
and they increase the number of options available
for implementation of the operations concept.
Furthermore, margins in the on-board resources
are extremely effective in reducing the
probability that an anomaly occurs and may limit
the resulting damage if one does occur.
3. Design for Operability. Spacecraft
operability refers to the ‘ease’ with which it can
be operated with savings generated through the
implementation of a simpler operations concept.
Operability is closely related to the availability of
resource margins and design robustness but
addresses different aspects, for instance,
telemetry and tele-command interfaces and mode
transitions. When operability issues are
addressed early in the design process, they can
normally be fulfilled at no or insignificant extra
expenditure and lead to rather straightforward
and sensible design choices. Too often, however,
operability issues are ignored or relegated to the
mission operations team in order to save
spacecraft development costs. In fact, these
trades should come naturally as part of the
concurrent engineering process if the system
engineering concept is taken seriously. After the
spacecraft has been launched, the operability may
be enhanced only to a very limited extent, i.e. by
means of ground system and on-board software
modifications.
4. On-Board Autonomy. When a
spacecraft is able to perform certain operations
functions on its own without direct support from
ground, one refers to on-board autonomy. One of
the prime objectives of the system engineering
process is to design and develop spacecraft
systems that require minimal operations support.
Perhaps the most obvious way to reduce
planetary nuwons 67
operations cost is to build a spacecraft that does
not require any control from ground (but the
corresponding complications in spacecraft design
and their costs should not be ignored in a
meaningful system design trade-off!). The degree
of on-board autonomy to be implemented
depends largely on the characteristics of a
specific mission and should be determined
through the system engineering process.
Ground System Design
1. Re-Use of Existing Facilities. In
order to save the resources required for the
development and validation of a new mission
control system, it is advantageous (from
reliability and schedule points of view) to re-use
existing software and hardware elements. In
addition, a number of nice-to-have features may
come along with the existing infrastructure at no
extra cost. Existing capabilities, however, are not
necessarily cost-efficient in all cases:
maintenance and personnel costs associated with
outdated and inefficient facilities can negate their
advantage. A detailed analysis will also be
necessary to determine whether the existing
element in question indeed is capable of
performing the required functions, whether the
interfaces with other system elements are
compatible. Usually, the main implementation
challenge will be in the tailoring and integration
of the various existing elements coming from
different heritages into an effective working
system and in the subsequent validation of the
integrated system.
2. Commercial Off -The- Shelf
Elements. Commercial 08 -The- Shelf (COTS)
hardware and software elements designate
capabilities which can be purchased on the
commercial market_ This option should always be
examined for applicability on a cost-efficiency
basis. In fact, it may be worthwhile to
reformulate existing support requirements in
order to adapt them to the available COTS
capabilities. Alternatively, COTS elements may
be adapted or tailored to the requirements at hand
at a lower cost than new developments. In the
case of the NEAR ground system, the core
control system containing generic telemetry and
tele-command functions and interfaces is an off-
the-shelf system’.
There are, however, a few major shortcomings of
COTS systems:
68 Low-cost planetary
1. COTS elements for space mission applications
are not like the shrink-wrapped products of the
truly commercial (in particular, PC) marketplace.
Also the efforts of customization for each
application should be considered in the total cost.
2. Many capabilities that are required for
operating a complex and unique space mission
are often not found in the COTS offerings:
straightforward telemetry, tracking, and control
functions for a commercial communications
satellite are significantly different from those for
a unique planetary exploration mission with
complex mission planning and command
sequence development.
3. Adherence to Standards. Standards
refer to commonly accepted ‘means of
implementation’. The use of standards reduces
costs through the avoidance of superfIuous
duplication of development efforts. Therefore,
the use of standards has found widespread
application in all major space agencies, in
particular in multi-mission environments. As a
prime example, the packet telemetry and tele-
command data interface standards developed
under the auspices of the Consultative Committee
on Space Data Sranaizrds (CCSDS), which have
proven to be extremely effective, may be
mentioned. The CCSDS consists of telemetry and
tele-command data transfer and processing
experts from ESA, NASA, and NASDA.
Standardization of on-board subsystems and
interfaces (for instance, micro-processors and
data interface buses) has also proven to be a
favorable factor for spacecraft as well ground
segment development costs.
Standards should be adopted whenever they
result in a more cost-effective implementation or
when there is a potential need of cross-support.
The potential use of standards for a particular
project should be studied with care as
incompatibilities may arise with specific existing
or commercial off -the- shelf items.
4. Test & Operations CommonaWes.
It is advantageous to build systems that achieve
simplicity through the use of common
architectures. Many spacecraft Integration and
Test (I&T) functions are duplicated in the
mission operations system and vice versa. Why
should these capabilities be developed twice?
The use of a common system design for mission
operations and I&T saves resources not only in
the design and development of the ground
system, but also in training of personnel and
misslons
staffing during test, launch, and mission
operations. Two individual systems may be
required in order to be able to support
simultaneous pre-launch I & T and operations
preparations.
Spacecraft databases can readily be designed
with the objective to be reused during the
operations phase. Operations staff should
actively participate in the spacecraft integration
tests for familiarization and training purposes. In
the case of the NEAR mission, the control system
developed for spacecraft integration and testing
served as a (separate) proto-type for the
operations control system required after launch.
After launch, the I & T system will be
reconfigured as a backup operational system’.
ODerations Concern
There exist a number of cost saving features
which can be implemented within the operations
realm itself without affecting the rest of the
system. Pre-launch development of ground
segment facilities and operations processes, team
build-up and training, and system testing are
significant mission cost items. Analyses and
trades of the available options should be
performed during the operations concept
development within the framework of the mission
system engineering process.
1. Small & Skilled Team. The most
significant post-launch cost item for most
missions is personnel. Therefore, cost-
effectiveness requires the number of operations
staff to be minim&d by building spacecraft and
ground systems that require minimum support.
Reductions in personnel may also be achieved
merely by paying attention to the type and
capabilities of staff hired and the changes in
skills needed during different phases of the
mission.
As teams become smaller, the competence and
scope of individual members becomes more
important. Small teams can not afford to have
members with specialized or limited skills; every
team member must contribute significantly to the
overall productivity of the team. Operations staff
should preferably have a multi-disciplinary
system-level inclination. For maximum
effectiveness, they may be cross-trained to be
able to perform any potential operations activity
as well as associated administrative chores.
 Low-cost
Operators should be given a variety of related
tasks, which keeps staff challenged and interested
in the tasks they are performing and, if so
required by the circumstances, allows them to
transgress the boundaries of their direct
responsibility.
2. Multi-Mission Infrastructure. The
repeated use of a standard mission control
infrastructure for a number of different missions
is an obvious and common approach for
implementing low-cost ground systems. There
are significant advantages in terms of
implementation effort, testing and operators
training. A multi-mission environment usually
provides a readily available common back-up
control system which may be shared between a
number of missions. Also staff may be re-used
efficiently on sequential and even on parallel
projects. It should also be mentioned, however,
that the cost and schedule for a multi-mission
control system implementation are in general
significantly higher than those for a mission-
dedicated system. This is a consequence of the
many ‘generic’ requirements which must be
anticipated. Therefore, a sufficient number of
missions should be available in order that the
initial investments can be amortized.
ESA’s operations center ESOC has
systematically developed and maintained a multi-
mission operations infrastructure: only three
different control systems have been used in
ESOC for the operations support of about 30
satellites over the past 20 years. Diverse mission-
specific support requirements have in general
been incorporated by more or less extensive
tailoring of the baseline core system.
3. Advanced Technology Tools.
Advanced fechndogy tools refer to the powerful
capabilities of existing hardware and software
facilities: these should be utilized whenever
applicable by the operations staff in their
monitoring, control, and assessment tasks.
Operations costs can be reduced dramatically
through enhancement of staff productivity. Any
cost savings, however, must be traded off against
the costs for development, validation and training
involved with the installation and use of the
tools.
Present state-of-the-art software tools are well
capable of providing immediate interpretations of
large complex data sets and allow easy
visualizations of spacecraft and other properties
by means of graphics and mimic displays.
planetary mmtons
Sophisticated software tools exist for high-level
command preparations by the spacecraft analyst.
Off-the-shelf database tools are extremely
effective in handling large telemetry files and
spacecraft databases. Animation facilities for
visualization of spacecraft attitude motion have
proven to be extremely valuable during
spacecraft design as well as in preparing
maneuvers during operations.
4. Ground System Automation. The
term auromution refers to the automatic and
unattended performance of operations tasks by
on-ground hardware and software facilities.
Automation of many routine and tedious planning
and control functions is expected to become a
promising means for reducing operations costs in
the near future. Once this method has been
demonstrated to be robust and reliable,
significant savings will result from the reduction
or elimination of operations staff, in particular
outside normal work hours.
While totally automated operations may in
general not be feasible for complex scientific
missions, routine planning and scheduling
functions are often already automated to a large
extent. The use of high-level command languages
reduces operations control efforts, as do
integrated databases, graphical user interfaces,
and automatic report generation and transmission
capabilities. In any case, however, automation
should preferably be implemented only gradually
over time and only after routine operational
experience has been established for a particular
mission.
The next logical step in operations automation
will consist of systems that autonomously
receive, ~rrocess, interpret, and respond to
spacecraft telemetry. Automated monitoring of
telemetry may not only alert an operator to an
out-of-bounds co.tdition, it may spawn a
complicated process: for instance, it may advise
the operator what to do (i.e., retrieve a
contingency plan from a database), or even take
limited action itself depending on the nature and
severity of the anomaly. Spacecraft data trending
and analysis can be highly automated, generating
formatted reports and delivering them
electronically to the correct parties at the
appropriate times (e.g., at shift changes).
70 Low-cost planetary missions

CONCLUSIONS 5. Landshof, J.A., Harvey, R.J., & Marshall,

M.H., ‘Concurrent Engineering: Spacecraft
The main results and conclusions of the work and Mission Operations System Design’,
presented here may be summarized as follows: Third International Symposium on Space
The importance of the mission system Mission Operations and Data Systems,
engineering process as the environment in NASA Conference Proceedings 328 1,
which meaningful mission life-cycle cost- Greenbelt, MD, November 15- 18, 1994, pp.
effectiveness can be achieved has been 1391-1397.
emphasized and illustrated by examples. Ondrus, P. & Fatig, M., ‘Mission
A systematic breakdown of the various Engineering’, Second International
existing concepts and methodologies for Symposium on Space Mission Operations
conducting cost-effective mission operations and Data Systems Proceedings, November
has been carried ous the two principal areas 16-20, 1992, JPL 93-5. pp. 313-318.
identified and studied are: Marshall, M H., Cameron, G.E., &
a) programmatks which includes project Landshof, J.A. &., ‘The NEAR Mission
management and the ‘cultural’ Operations System’, Acta Astronautica, Vol.
characteristics of the environment in which 35, 1995, pp. 501-506.
operations activities are performed ;

b) mission system design which refers to

the concurrent and interactive design of
spacecraft, ground segment, and operations
within the mission system engineering
process.
A number of specific experiences and
recommendations which have been proven
to be effective in actual missions have been
presented and discussed in detail.
The results presented may be expected to be
useful when developing cost-effective
operations concepts for future missions
under severe cost and schedule constraints

REFERENCES
1. Space Mission Analysis and Design, Second
Edition, Edited by Larson, W.J. & Wertz,
J.R., Microcosm, Inc. & Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1992.
2. Reducing Space Mission Costs, Edited by
J.R. Wertz & Larson, W.J., Microcosm, Inc.
C Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
3. Ledbetter, K.W., ‘Mission Operations Costs
for Scientific Spacecraft: The Revolution
That is Needed’, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 35,
1995, pp. 465-473.
4. Booth, G., Object Oriented Design with
Applications, The Benjamin / Cummings
Publishing Company, Inc., Redwood City,
California, 199 1.

View publication stats