Constellation ProgramPlanning & Control

Project Management Challenge

Charlie StegemoellerDirector, Constellation Program Planning and Control

Wayne ThomasChief, Constellation Contracts Integration

2

Constellation Program Planning and Control

Objective:• Share the perspectives and lessons from standing up the

Constellation Program within today’s Agency policies

Topics:• Overview of the Constellation Program

– Organizational Relationships– Lessons Learned

• Program Contracts Integration• Implementation of 7120.5D

3

Overview of Constellation Program

Timeline of Program:• Vision for Space Exploration – Issued January 2004• Precursors for Orion and Ares Projects initiated (kickoff of RFPs) –

Spring of 2004• Exploration Systems Architecture Study – conducted

Spring/Summer 2005• Constellation Program Manager named October 2005• First Cx Control Board – January 2006• Cx Formulation Authorization Document - August 2006• Contracts for Orion and Ares systems start – Summer 2006• Cx Program Systems Requirements Review – Fall 2006• Cx Program Systems Definition Review – March 2008• Project PDRs underway• Program PAR planned for Summer 2009

4

120

90

60

30 Ove

rall

Vehi

cle

Hei

ght i

n M

eter

s

Space ShuttleSpace Shuttle Ares IAres I Ares VAres V Saturn VSaturn VHeight: 56m

Gross Liftoff Mass: 2040 tons

25 tons to LEO

Height: 98mGross Liftoff Mass: 910 tons

22 tons to LEO

Height: 109mGross Liftoff Mass: 3310t

55 tons cargo to moon66 tons to moon in dual-launch mode with Ares 1

150 tons to LEO

Height: 111mGross Liftoff Mass: 2950 tons

45 tons to moon119 tons to LEO

Upper Stage(1 J-2X)127 tons LOx/LH2

LunarLander

Earth DepartureStage (EDS) (1 J-2X)253 tons LOx/LH2

Core Stage(6 RS-68B engines)1590 tons LOx/LH2

5.5 segment2 RSRBs

Crew

Lander

S-IVB(1 J-2 engine)110 t Lox/LH2

S-II(5 J-2 engines)450 t LOx/LH2

S-IC(5 F-1)1770 t LOx/RP

Building on Proven TechnologiesLaunch Vehicle Comparisons

5 - segment shuttle derived solid rocket booster

5

NASA’s Exploration Roadmap0605 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25…

Lunar Surface Systems Development

Lunar Robotic Missions

Commercial Orbital Transportation for ISS

Altair Lunar Lander Development

Ares and Orion Development

Ares V & Earth Departure Stage

Ares & Orion Production and Operations

Operations Capability Development(EVA Systems, Ground Ops, Mission Ops)

Space Shuttle Operations

Initial Capability Lunar Capability

Lunar Outpost Buildup

R&T Development on ISS for Risk Reduction

6

Ares I

Ground Operations Mission Operations

EVA

Ares V

EVA

Altair

Lunar Surface

Systems of the Constellation Program

Initial Capability Lunar CapabilityOrion

7

Agency/Constellation OrganizationNASA

Space Operations Mission Directorate

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

Constellation Program

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

Science Mission Directorate

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Ares Project Orion ProjectExtravehicular

Activities Project

Ground Operations

Project

Mission Operations

ProjectAltair Project

Lunar Surface Systems Project

Safety, Reliability &

Quality Assurance

Program Planning &

Control

Systems Engineering & Integration

Operations, Testing &

Integration

Information Systems

Program Manager

8

Program Management Relationships

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Associate

Administrator (ESMD AA)

NASA Associate Administrator (AA)

Space Operations Mission Directorate Associate

Administrator (SOMD AA)

Constellation Systems Division NASA Headquarters

Center Directors

NASA AdministratorDeputy

ProgramPlanning & Reporting

Level 1 Program Requirements &

Funding

Constellation Program Manager

Constellation Project Managers

CoordinatesSupports

ProjectPlans & Reporting

Level 2 Project Requirements & Funding

Program Commitment

Agreement (PCA)

Formulation Authorization

Document (FAD)

Project insight and information flow

9

CONSTELLATION’S WORKFORCE - CENTERS

As of 11/11/08

10

CONSTELLATION’S WORKFORCE -CONTRACTORS

As of 11/11/08

CDR

CxP Integration Roadmap – Path Forward

• Orion• Ares• Ground Ops• Mission Ops• EVA Systems

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

APMC10/11/07

SDR/PAR

QPMR

ARES I-X

Project Formulation Pre-Project Formulation

CDRSynchronization

IC Implementation Phase

AA-3

QPMR

APMC u/r

Initi

al C

apab

ility

Luna

r Cap

abili

ty

PROGRAM

APPROVAL

EXECUTI

ON

RESOURCES

IDAC 3 IDAC-4A & B IDAC 5 IDAC 6Design &Analysis

Constellation Program Planning &Control

Updated: December 15, 2008 Draft Version 33

PDR

PSRR / PPAR – Program System Requirements Review / Preliminary Program Approval ReviewPSDR / PAR – Program System Definition Review / Program Approval ReviewPDR / NAR – Preliminary Design Review / Non-advocate ReviewCDR / PRR - Critical Design Review / Production Readiness Review

• Lunar SurfaceSystems

You

are

here

.

Pre-Project Formulation

LSCR – Lunar Surface Concept ReviewHLR / SRR – Human Lunar Return / System Readiness Review

LSS Review

Lunar Projects SRRu/r

Program

Projects

Human Lunar Return• Ares V• Altair

MCR6/18-20

Q1 Q2

SRR/PPAR

IC Formulation Phase

SIR

KD

P 1

KD

P 2

Ares Orion MO GO

Project PDRs/NARs

Project CDRs/PRRsProject SDRs/PNARs

SIR

Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012

VM-1

VM-2

Ares Test Flight

Virtual Mission

Pad Abort (PA)/Ascent Abort (AA)

ESMD

KD

P B

KD

P C

KD

P D

TRR8/6-7

TRR4/17-18

QPMR

Quarterly Program Management Review

Top Risk ReviewAgency Program Management Council

LCCR6/18-20

LC Formulation Phase

QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR

Program

TRR10/28-29

Core LunarInfrastructure

AA-1

2009 PBS

2010 PBS

2011 PBS

2012 PBS

2013 PBS

2014 PBS

PMR ’08/PPBE ‘10

PMR ’09/PPBE ‘11

PMR ’10/PPBE ‘12

PMR ’11/PPBE ‘13

2009 President Budget Submit to Congress

OMBPassback

2010 President Budget Submit to Congress

OMBPassback

PMR ’12/PPBE ‘14

2011 President Budget Submit to Congress

OMBPassback

2012 President Budget Submit to Congress

OMBPassback

2013 President Budget Submit to Congress

OMBPassback

PA-1

EVA u/r

Flight Tests& Simulations

PDRSynchronization

6/10SDR

Synchronization6/16-17

HLR SRR 6/10

LunarCheckpoint

IDAC 7

KD

P A APMC

APMC APMC

TRR12/9-10r

11

12

Stakeholders

Congress•Members• Staffers

•GAO

White House•OSTP•OMB•OIG

NASA HQ

OCE

PA&E

S&MA

OGCOLA

Office of

Procure-ment

PAO

Administrator

Mission Directorates

•Programs•Shuttle

•ISS

Private Industry

External Review

Committees

MSFC &

MAF

JPL

Dryden

GRC

ARCJSC & WSTF

SSC

LaRC

GSFC

KSC

NASA Centers

13

PP&C Lessons Learned• Start-up is hard• Concurrent initiation AND accomplishment of work takes time

and talent– Best practice – develop a plan and enact the plan

• Staffing is always key• Develop requirements first – then review for accuracy• Don’t underestimate the time it takes to coordinate among

stakeholders• Don’t underestimate the number of stakeholders• Solicit feedback from external parties and greybeards• Policy enactment is more complicated than policy

development• Open communication is a force multiplier

Program Contracts Integration

Project Management Challenge

Wayne ThomasChief, Contracts Integration Office

15

Acquisition Management Challenge

• Programs supported by multiple NASA Centers have an integration challenge to maintain a strategic program focus in contracts

• Contracts are typically awarded and managed at the project level by center procurement offices supporting the individual projects

• Need to ensure that Program and Agency objectives are supported by the Program’s contracts

• Need to ensure that contracts operate together in an efficient and cohesive fashion to successfully execute the Program

16

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13Ares I-X Or-2 Or-3 Or-4Or-1

FY14 FY15 FY16Ares I-Y

US Instrument Unit Avionics Production

Or-5 Or-7 Or-8Or-6

IOC FOCCx Milestones

DDT&E/Prod for 1st flt, Conf 1

Sched A DDT&E for Orion

SPOC JOFOC for Cx Tasks

GO ‘EGLS’ Cx Processing contract

Option 2 Config 1 Prod and SustainingOption 1 DDT&E/Prod for 1st flt, Conf. 2

NBL/SVMF Ops Contract (NSOC)

Facilities Development and Ops (FDOC)

*Sched B Production

First Stage DDT&E

J-2X DDT&E

J2-X Production/Sustaining Eng.

First Stage Production/Sustaining Eng

* Sched C Sustaining Eng *Options

Mission Support Ops (MSOC)

Integrated Mission Ops Contract (IMOC)

PMR 08 Rev 1

Major Constellation Prime Contracts

Plan in Development

Plan in DevelopmentUpper Stage Production

Ground Operations

Mission Operations

Ares 1

EVA

Orion

17

Program Level Contract Integration

• CxP maintains a Program-level interface for acquisitions across NASA with a dedicated contracts integration function

• Staff function within PP&C office– Provides single point for acquisition related matters at

the Program level– Program level acquisition interface with Level 3

projects and with HQ Mission Directorates and Office of Procurement

18

Contracts Integration office

• Contracts Integration– Primary role is interface with CxP contracting offices at the

various centers– Facilitate Program-level understanding of and consistency in

strategic contract features and processes– Facilitate Program-level approvals– Integrate relevant Program procurement information– Support Agency-level acquisition planning for the Program

• Does not perform Contracting Office functions:– Execute or manage contracts– Focus is on programmatic issues not on procurement processes

and regs

19

Agency Strategic Acquisition Planning

• Program acquisition strategy must consider the broader agency impacts of the planned acquisitions

• Outcomes of a good strategy– Cost effective execution of projects and programs– Facilitate workforce transitions– Maintain key NASA in-house capabilities– Support NASA procurement tenets– Help support Agency goal of ten healthy centers

• Agency-level reviews ensure broader aspects are considered– ESMD/SOMD Joint Integration Control Board (JICB) acquisition

reviews– Acquisition Strategy Meeting (ASM) - 7120.5D milestone

20

Lessons Learned

• Understand the difference between the contracts integration role and the procurement office role – they should be complimentary

• Key to success is communication –– Resist creating new Level 2 reporting or approval of requirements– Use existing communication forums and data sources to the

maximum extent• There are many stakeholders and they can have different

interests and priorities for acquisition strategies– Expect acquisition strategy to evolve and mature to meet the broad

range of project, program, and agency needs– Pre-briefs are useful to frame issues and develop the acquisition

strategy

Implementing 7120.5D

Project Management Challenge

Charlie StegemoellerDirector, Constellation Program Planning and Control

22

Constellation PP&C Organization

ZB/LZ

Resources Management Office

ZB111

DirectorDeputy Director

Associate Director Asst. for Security Mgmt.

Contracts Integration

ZB

CxP Level II / Projects Level III

Ares Project Procurement Office

Exploration Systems Procurement Office

ZB2

Management Systems Office

Ground Operations Project Procurement

Level 2 Integration and Analysis

Schedules, Cost Estimating, and

Assessments (SCEA)ZB/LW

Cost Estimating Team

Assessment TeamAssessment Team

IMS/EVM TeamIMS/EVM Team

Analysis IntegrationAnalysis Integration

Program Integration Project

Program Integration Project

Other ProjectsLunar Lander-Surf. Sys. etc

Orion ProjectOrion Project

Configuration Management

Information Systems

PP&C Office is responsible for tracking the implementation of NPD 7120.5 – policies, processes, tools, and records

23

Program Life Cycle

23

24

NPR 7120.5D Lessons Learned• Thoroughly study the NPR 7120.5D requirements and associated

documentation• Your customers are the Convening Authorities –

– Know what they want• Document your internal and independent review processes,

– Identify implementation of requirements• Do not hold the SRB Site Review before you have a validated,

integrated technical, cost and schedule baseline• Proactively set the agenda for the SRB Site Review

– Set the stage, boundaries, objectives• Although NPR 7120.5D requirements can be “document centric,” the

SRB is not all that interested in your documents• Find a way to minimize the overhead of providing data to the SRB• Understand the capabilities and limitations of the confidence level

tools you are using

25

Standard Engagement Approach

Nominal Timeline Road to KDP KDP

• Site Review + 30 days

• Final statement of findings and recommendations on KDP

• Quick report on major findings to Project, Center, etc. Site review <24 hours)

• Briefings to Project –Program – ESMD

• Prep for APMC• Include Center’s POC

as needed• Develop

recommendations for APMC

• Conduct DPMC

• Project presents summary of T, C, S, R of Project (presents Deltas since IR)

• Respond to RFAs• Identify Open Work• TA’s + Centers

report as part of site review

• SRB reports findings of cost/schedule reconciliation

• Respond to IR actions

• Respond to RFAs• Complete actions

for KDP• A: reconcile all

related cost/schedule products with SRB team

• SRB (& others) participate as observers during review

• Project includes T, C, S, R entry/exit criteria as part of Internal Board Event

• At conclusion of IR, map path to KDP

• SRB submits RFAs post-conclusion of board and states opinion of Project readiness to proceed to KDP

• A: Projects develop cost/schedule products as required

• Project submits Quick Look report up the chain at conclusion of Board & recommendation to proceed.

APMC(1/2 day)

Findings and Response(<30 days)

Site Review(5-10 days)

Project & SRB Prep for KDP(30-120 days)

Project Internal Review cycle(2-4 months)

IR = Internal Review

A: Action to Develop Process/Timeline R+R for ICE; Conf Level Products

26

SRB observer role“One pager” by Project, includes plan to KDP

S/S ReviewsInternal Project PDR

RFAs FindingsSRB assessment of entry criteria to Project/Program

SRB Site Review

“One pager” + 1 day (joint activity)• Quick status• Only big issues, not concerns/observations• Initial ICESRB

PDR/NAR KDP5 – 10 days•Technical•Cost•Schedule•Risk

30 days

“Pre-work”Briefings: P/p, CMC, DPMC, APMC

Model Development Joint with IPAO/Project ICA/ICE/ISA reconciliations Independent Life Cycle Review (ILCR)

1 – 6 months

Inte

grat

ed

Standard Review BoardEngagement Timeline

27

Driving Conditions for Constellation

• Program stood-up after Ares and Orion projects• Agency re-alignment of policies and assignments

– Concurrent with Program start-up– Ten healthy centers– 7120.5 Rev D issuance

• Performance measurement tools actively in design and development– EVMS– Confidence levels– Standing review boards

• Shuttle Program definition of retirement evolving– Resultant transfer of fixed costs

Fortunately . . . . . political support remained strong

28

PP&C Lessons Learned - Recap

• Start-up is hard• Concurrent initiation AND accomplishment of work takes time

and talent– Best practice – develop a plan and enact the plan

• Develop requirements first – then review for accuracy• Staffing is always key• Don’t underestimate the time it takes to coordinate among

stakeholders• Don’t underestimate the number of stakeholders• Open communication is a force multiplier• Policy enactment is more complicated than policy

development• Solicit feedback from external parties and greybeards

Questions?

Constellation main page: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/const

ellation/main/index.htmlExploration Systems Mission Directorate: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ho

me/index.html

30

Back up

31

Project Roles

• CxP 72179 EVA Systems Project Plan

• CxP 72002 EVA Systems SRD

• Suit Systems (Configurations 1 and 2)• Vehicle Interface Systems• Tool and Equipment SystemsJSC

Extravehicular Activities (EVA) Systems

• CxP 70000 Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD)

• Earth Departure Stage• Loiter Skirt• Interstage• Solid Rocket Boosters• Core Stage

MSFCAres V

• CxP 70057 Ares Projects Plan

• CxP 72034 Ares SRD

• First Stage Element• Upper Stage Element• Upper Stage Engine• Orion/Ares vehicle integration

MSFCAres I

• CxP 70000 Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD)

• Ascent Module• Descent Module• Airlock

JSCAltair

Project Requirements DocumentationProject SystemsHost

CenterProject

32

Project Roles continued

�CxP 72008 CEV Project Plan

�CxP 72000 CEV SRD

�Launch Abort System (LAS)�Crew Module (CM)�Service Module (SM)�Spacecraft Adapter (SA)

JSC

Orion –(Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV))

�CxP 72165 Mission Operations (MO) Project Plan

�CxP 72136 MO SRD

�Mission Control Center System (MCCS)�Mission Operations Reconfiguration System

(MORS)�Constellation Training Element

JSCMission Operations (MO)

�CxP 70000 Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD)

�Elements (includes habitable volumes) �Surface Mobility Systems�In-situ Resource Development Systems

JSCLunar Surface Systems

�CxP 72120 Ground Operations Project (GOP) Project Plan

�CxP 72006 GOP SRD

�Spacecraft Processing Element (SPE)�Solid Rocket Processing Element (SRPE)�Vertical Integration Element (VIE)�Mobil Launch Element (MLE)�Launch Pad Element (LPE)�Spacecraft Recover and Retrieval Element

(SRRE)�Command, Control & Communications

Element (CCCE)�Operations Support Element (OSE)

KSCGround Operations (GO)

Project Requirements DocumentationProject SystemsHost

CenterProject

33

Flow of Agency and ESMD Requirements

Constellation Program Plan(CxP 70003)

U.S. Space Exploration Policy(NP-2004-01-334-HQ)

NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L.109-155)

Exploration Needs, Goals, and Objectives(ESMD-ENGO-01.08 Rev. A)

Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD)

(CxP 70000)

Exploration Architecture Requirements Document (EARD)

(ESMD-EARD-08.07 Rev. A)

34

Program Authorization

• ESMD Formulation Authorization Document (FAD), July 31, 2006– Authorized formulation of Orion, Ares I, Ground Operations,

Mission Operations and Extravehicular Activity Projects

• ESMD Lunar Capability FAD, August 25, 2008– Authorized formulation of Ares V and Altair Projects

• CxP Program Plan approved by ESMD AA, October 17, 2008

• Program Commitment Agreement to be authorized at completion of CxP Program Approval Review (key decision point 1)