REG GSFC-STD-1001 REV A-2009 Criteria for Flight and Flight Support Systems Lifecycle Reviews.pdf

1、 GODDARD TECHNICAL STANDARD GSFC-STD-1001A Goddard Space Flight Center Approved: 10-01-2009 Greenbelt, MD 20771 Expiration Date: 10-01-2014 Superseding GSFC-STD-1001 Criteria for Flight and Flight Support Systems Lifecycle Reviews October 1, 2009 THIS STANDARD HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR EXPORT CONTRO

2、L RESTRICTIONS; CONSULT YOUR CENTER/FACILITY/HEADQUARTERS EXPORT CONTROL PROCEDURES/AUTHORITY PRIOR TO DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-i FOREWORD This standard is published by the Goddard Space Flight ce

3、nter (GSFC) to provide a consistent set of guidelines that detail the purpose, timing, success criteria and evaluation factors to be considered in the preparation and conduct of both Agency and Center-level mission and element reviews starting at Pre-Phase A, Concept Studies, through Phase F, Close

4、Out. These guidelines have been derived from best practices in use at GSFC as compiled both internally and at the NASA Agency level. Approved by: Original Signed by: George Alcorn Date Goddard Technical Standard Coordinator NASA/GSFC Code 300 Original Signed by: Steven Scott Date Chief Engineer NASA

5、/GSFC Code 500 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-ii For any questions concerning this standard, please contact Code 301, Chief, System Review Office Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo r

6、eproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-iii Approved by: Original signed by: _ Orlando Figueroa Date Director Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate NASA/GSFC Code 500 Approved by: Original signed by: _ George W. Morrow Date Director Flight Programs and Projects Dire

7、ctorate NASA/GSFC Code 400 Approved by: Original signed by: _ Marcus Watkins Date Director Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate NASA/GSFC Code 300 Approved by: Original signed by: Arthur Obenschain Date Deputy Center Director NASA/GSFC Code 100 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or net

8、working permitted without license from IHS-,-,-iv CHANGE HISTORY LOG Revision Effective Date Description of Changes - 02/19/2005 Baseline Release A 10/01/2009 Modified to reflect changes to NPR 7120.5 Rev. D, and NPR 7123.1 Rev. A. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted

9、 without license from IHS-,-,-v TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE CHANGE HISTORY LOG 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES . vi 1.0 SCOPE 1 2.0 MISSION AND ELEMENT-LEVEL REVIEWS 2 3.0 MISSION CONCEPT REVIEW (MCR) 5 4.0 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND SYSTEM DEFINITION REVIEWS (SRR/SDR) 7 5.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN

10、REVIEW (PDR) 10 6.0 CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDR) 12 7.0 MISSION OPERATIONS REVIEW (MOR) . 14 8.0 SYSTEMS INTEGRATION REVIEW (SIR) 16 9.0 PRE-ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (PER) 18 10.0 FLIGHT OPERATIONS REVIEW (FOR) 20 11.0 PRE-SHIPMENT REVIEW (PSR). 22 12.0 OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS (ORR) . 24 13.0 POST

11、-LAUNCH ASSESSMENT REVIEW (PLAR) 26 14.0 CRITICAL EVENT READINESS REVIEW (CERR) 28 15.0 DECOMMISSIONING REVIEW (DR) . 29 ACRONYM LIST . 31 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2-1 Chairing Organizations of Key

12、Mission and Element-Level Reviews 4 3-2 MCR Success Criteria . 6 4-2 SRR/SDR or MSRR/MDR Success Criteria . 8 5-2 PDR Success Criteria. 11 6-2 CDR Success Criteria 13 7-2 MOR Success Criteria . 15 8-2 SIR Success Criteria 17 9-2 PER Success Criteria . 19 10-2 FOR Success Criteria . 21 11-2 PSR Succe

13、ss Criteria . 23 12-2 ORR Success Criteria 25 13-2 PLAR Success Criteria 26 14-2 CERR Success Criteria 28 15-2 DR Success Criteria . 30 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-1 1.0 SCOPE 1.1 Purpose The guidelines and criteria contained in t

14、his document are intended for use by the project team, the GSFC System Review Office (SRO), the Independent Program Assessment Office (IPAO), and the Chair of the NASA appointed Standing Review Board (SRB) in support of planning and implementing the reviews conducted under the authority of each orga

15、nization. Such reviews range from subsystem and functional reviews to the mission-level reviews, many of which serve as Key Decision Point (KDP) gateways. The criteria defined in this document have been developed to encompass those specified by NPR 7123.1. As a supplement to this document, the GSFC

16、STD-1001- Appendix, “Lifecycle Review Success Criteria Key Evaluation Factors”, provides sample evaluation factors intended to be used in assessing the projects achievements toward meeting the success criteria in the development of associated system. The sample lists are organized by review type (i.

17、e., SRR, PDR, CDR, PER, etc.) and are a compilation of evaluation factors acquired from lessons learned and NASA best practices. Key evaluation factors may be tailored to suit the needs of the individual project. They are typically provided as reference material to the project in support of review p

18、reparation and to the independent review panels to support the conduct of the review (agenda definition, line of questioning, etc.). The Key Evaluation Factors are not success criteria for the associated review. 1.2 Applicability This document describes the mission and lower level element reviews (e

19、.g., spacecraft, instrument, ground system, operations, etc.) conducted during the development and operations lifecycle for Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) managed projects, and incorporates the requirements for: (a) Agency-level mission reviews as prescribed by National Aeronautics and Space Adm

20、inistration (NASA) Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5D, “NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements” and NPR 7123.1, “NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements”, (b) Center unique mission, flight, and flight support system reviews as prescribed by GSFC Procedural Requir

21、ement (GPR) 8700.4, “Integrated Independent Reviews”, the results of which are flowed up to the Agency level reviews that are conducted in support of the Agency level mission reviews at a lower level. The Project/Product Manager should use this guide when preparing the Systems Review Plan (SRP) for

22、conducting a comprehensive set of mission, spacecraft, instrument and ground system reviews as required by Agency and GSFC review process documents. In collaboration with the Systems Review Manager (SRM), the IPAO appointed Review Manager (RM) and SRB Chair should use this document to assess complia

23、nce with unique Agency requirements and to prepare the Terms of Reference (ToR) that documents the charter of the SRB. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-2 2.0 MISSION AND ELEMENT-LEVEL REVIEWS The SRO is responsible for the implementati

24、on of the GSFC independent review requirements as approved by the Center Management Council (CMC) for all flight projects, including mission and element reviews. This document should be used by the Project Manager, and the Chairs of the Integrated Independent Review Team (IIRT) and SRB, to determine

25、 the projects readiness to proceed with a review and to finalize the specific objectives, agenda, and success criteria prior to each review. It provides specific information for the reviews identified in GPR 8700.4 including descriptions of review objectives, typical timing, and success criteria. Th

26、e mission-level reviews described in this document include those conducted to meet the unique requirements of the Center in addition to the reviews required by the Agency to be conducted by the SRB at specific progress points along the development lifecycle for NASA missions. These reviews are suppo

27、rted by element reviews that are conducted by a GSFC-convened IIRT and include spacecraft, instrument, operational and ground systems. Furthering the continuity of the Centers review process, the mission and element reviews are supported by project implemented Engineering Peer Reviews (EPRs) with a

28、principal focus on discipline or subsystem related technical considerations. These reviews are addressed in a project Engineering Peer Review Plan (EPRP) as required by GPR 8700.6, “Engineering Peer Reviews”. It is recognized that the full set of mission and element-level reviews described herein wi

29、ll not be appropriate for every project. Therefore, not all projects will conform to the complete lifecycle review process described in NPR 7120.5D and/or GPR 8700.4, and may require a waiver and/or tailoring of the requirements and criteria to match the specific needs of the project. To accommodate

30、 this, project-unique review requirements may be negotiated with the responsible review team chair to tailor the review requirements and success criteria as appropriate. The details of the agreed upon tailoring are documented in the SRP and/or the ToR and shall be supported by a waiver to the requir

31、ements of GPR 8700.4 or NPR 7120.5D as may be required. It is also recognized that the final complement of reviews, individual review content, review titles, and the timing for the conduct of the individual reviews may vary with each project. However, unless otherwise agreed upon and documented in t

32、he SRP, the complete set of success criteria provided herein relative to the product being developed (end-to-end mission, flight or ground element, etc.) shall be addressed within the total set of reviews being proposed by the project. The distribution of criteria amongst the specific reviews may va

33、ry from what is specified in this document to best meet the needs of the specific project. 2.1 Results of Review Some projects may not fully satisfy all of the criteria at the time of the milestone/gateway review. In making a judgment as to whether the review has accomplished its objectives and has

34、been successfully completed, each member of the review team will assess the degree to which the above success criteria have been met based on the key evaluation factors. Each member should also take into account (a) the criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, (b) how straightforward the

35、 path forward is and the likelihood of success, as well as (c) any other relevant Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-3 factors. Individual findings from each review team member are conveyed to the convening authority in the panels final

36、report, including RFAs. An RFA is a formal written request sponsored by the review panel asking for additional information or action by the project team. They are generally developed as a result of insufficient safety, technical, or programmatic information being available at the time of the review.

37、 2.2 General Criteria The sections that follow provide the criteria to be used by the independent review panel members during their assessment of a flight or flight support system. The criteria have been divided into five categories: Review Process, Technical Management, System Design and Demonstrat

38、ion, Safety and Mission Assurance (S requirements/criteria not included in this document. 7 Supported by select SRB members. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-5 3.0 MISSION CONCEPT REVIEW (MCR) The MCR affirms the mission need and exami

39、nes the proposed missions objectives and the concept for meeting those objectives. Key technologies are identified and assessed. It is an internal review that is usually conducted by the system development organization. ROM budget and schedules are presented. At the MCR, the project demonstrates to

40、the review panel that the: proposed mission meets the science objectives proposed mission is feasible proposed mission and operations design concepts are viable preliminary plan for lifecycle activities suitably illustrates reasonable execution of the mission within resource budgets and other forese

41、en constraints 3.1 Timing The MCR is normally held upon completion of mission feasibility studies and represents the conclusion of project pre-formulation activities. In advance of the review, the project should highlight and discuss with the review chairperson any areas that may warrant considerati

42、on in establishing the composition of the review team (e.g., problematic mission requirements, critical technology dependencies, critical trade studies, or anticipated resource constraints). Depending upon the intended acquisition approach for the mission, GSFC management may decide that an MCR need

43、 not be conducted or that it will be replaced by a management review as permitted within the guidance of NPR 7120.5D. Such determination shall be made early in the lifecycle and in conjunction with the development of the project Systems Review Plan (SRP) and consequently the Terms of Reference (ToR)

44、 for the Standing Review Board (SRB) as an applicable document incorporated by reference. 3.2 Success Criteria The review agenda, success criteria, and charge to the independent review board shall be discussed for concurrence by the Principal Investigator (PI-mode only), Program Executive (SRB revie

45、ws only), Project Manager, Review Board Chairperson, Systems Review Manager, and Review Manager (where applicable); and distributed to all parties prior to the review. The review chairperson is responsible for initiating this discussion. Excluding any required tailoring, projects must at a minimum m

46、eet the following criteria as part of the MCR or demonstrate an adequate path to completion. Table 3-2 depicts the criteria for a successful MCR. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-6 Table 3-2: MCR Success Criteria Category MCR Criteria

47、Review Process A preliminary Systems Review Plan (SRP) including an Engineering Peer Review Plan (EPRP) is available and deemed compliant with all applicable requirements. Technical Management Mission objectives are clearly defined and unambiguous. (NPR 7123.1A) Potential technology needs are identi

48、fied and the gaps between such needs and the current and/or planned technology readiness levels have been assessed with acceptable results. (NPR 7123.1A) The evaluation criteria and trade space for candidate systems that fulfill the conceptual design requirements have been identified and prioritized. (NPR_7123.1A) Technical planning is sufficient to proceed to the next phase. (NPR 7123.1A) System Design and Demonstration An operations concept and