{"title":"DoD Space Test Program multi-payload launch mission management","authors":"S. Herrin, L. Berenberg, R. Musani","doi":"10.1109/AERO.2012.6187429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The DoD Space Test Program (STP) objective is to provide access to space for the experiments listed on the annual Space Experiments Review Board (SERB) list. In order to maximize the number of SERB experiments manifested and flown each year, STP has learned to efficiently optimize the capability of any launch to include as many space vehicles, or “payloads,” as possible. As a result, STP has documented a substantial number of management and technical lessons learned directly related to the execution of multi-payload missions. The management lessons stem from the fact that STP multi-payload missions always include a number of different government and contractor organizations that need to be managed from manifest to launch by a very limited number of STP personnel. The technical lessons span multiple launch vehicles including the STP-1 multi-payload mission on an Atlas V in 2007 and the STP-S26 multi-payload mission on a Minotaur IV in 2010. STP found that single-payload mission processes were stressed when applied to multi-payload missions, and established STP processes had to evolve to encompass the multi-payload case. Based on the experiences encountered in the execution of STP-1 and mission partner feedback, STP developed a set of tools, processes, and guidelines to manage multi-payload launch missions that were effectively demonstrated and further refined during the execution of the STP-S26 mission. This paper describes these tools, processes, and guidelines and provides discussion on the experiences behind each. Specifically addressed are: the mission toolkit, meeting and review processes, risk management methods, and the lessons learned process.1 2","PeriodicalId":6421,"journal":{"name":"2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference","volume":"125 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2012.6187429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The DoD Space Test Program (STP) objective is to provide access to space for the experiments listed on the annual Space Experiments Review Board (SERB) list. In order to maximize the number of SERB experiments manifested and flown each year, STP has learned to efficiently optimize the capability of any launch to include as many space vehicles, or “payloads,” as possible. As a result, STP has documented a substantial number of management and technical lessons learned directly related to the execution of multi-payload missions. The management lessons stem from the fact that STP multi-payload missions always include a number of different government and contractor organizations that need to be managed from manifest to launch by a very limited number of STP personnel. The technical lessons span multiple launch vehicles including the STP-1 multi-payload mission on an Atlas V in 2007 and the STP-S26 multi-payload mission on a Minotaur IV in 2010. STP found that single-payload mission processes were stressed when applied to multi-payload missions, and established STP processes had to evolve to encompass the multi-payload case. Based on the experiences encountered in the execution of STP-1 and mission partner feedback, STP developed a set of tools, processes, and guidelines to manage multi-payload launch missions that were effectively demonstrated and further refined during the execution of the STP-S26 mission. This paper describes these tools, processes, and guidelines and provides discussion on the experiences behind each. Specifically addressed are: the mission toolkit, meeting and review processes, risk management methods, and the lessons learned process.1 2