Past Proceedings
GSAW2009
Agenda, Presentations, & Tutorials
Select to view agenda: |
| Tutorials | |
| Chairs: Mike Hogan and Todd Kaiser, The Aerospace Corporation | |
| A. Software Testing for Mission-Critical Ground Systems Instructor: Suellen Eslinger, The Aerospace Corporation |
|
| B. Introduction to Net-Centricity Instructors: James Anderson, James Shneer, and Donald Town, The Aerospace Corporation |
|
| C. Visualizing User Requirements Instructors: James Anderson, James Shneer, and Donald Town, The Aerospace Corporation |
|
| D. CCSDS Course Instructors: Robert Ritter and Rob Andzik, Real Time Logic; Jose Ramirez, Integral Systems, Inc. |
|
| E. Assessing Software Technology Readiness for National Security Space Programs Instructor: Peter Hantos, The Aerospace Corporation |
|
| F. Beyond Open Architecture: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities in Open Source Software Development Instructor: Walt Scacchi, Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine |
|
| G. Key Issues in Human Systems Integration: Addressing Human Error and Automation in the Development and Operation of Large-Scale Technological Systems Instructors: Suzanne Dawes and Lee Harkless, The Aerospace Corporation; Janeen Sharma, Northrop Grumman |
|
| H. XTCE Tutorial Instructors: Kevin Rice, Global Science & Technology, Inc.; Brad Kizzort, Harris Corporation |
|
| I. Introduction to the DoD Architecture Framework Instructor: Ann Reedy, Federated Enterprise Architecture Certification Institute |
|
| J. Techniques for SOA Application Service Development Instructors: Steven Fonseca, Michael Kolar, Magdi Carlton, Elisa Kendall, Jayne Dutra, Sheldon Shen, Shan Malhotra, and Michael Levesque, Jet Propulsion Laboratory |
|
Top of Page
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
| Session 1: Keynote Session | |
| Introduction and Announcements Anil Agrawal, GSAW2009 General Chair, The Aerospace Corporation |
|
| Welcome Address
(video) Wanda Austin, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Aerospace Corporation |
|
| Keynote Address (video, no charts) Lt. Gen. John “Tom” Sheridan, Commander, Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center |
|
| Session 2: User-Centric Architectures | |
| Chair: Judy Kerner, The Aerospace Corporation | |
| The Use of Virtualization Techniques for Ground Data Systems Nestor Peccia, Mauro Pecchioli, Rui Santos, and Eduardo Gomez, European Space Agency/ESOC; Jose Luis Feiteirinha, EVOLVE Space Solutions |
|
| A User-Centric System-of-Systems Approach for Delivery of Actionable Earth
Environmental Data Morris Brill and Ronald Lowther, Northrop Grumman |
|
| MMSOC GSA: Standards and Architecture Enabling Multi-Mission Interoperability (paper) Gayla Walden, Charles Warrender, and Franchesca Malzahn, The Aerospace Corporation |
|
| Session 3: Service-Oriented Architecture Issues and Approaches | |
| Chair: Carl Sunshine, The Aerospace Corporation | |
| Toward SOA and Open: Review of the Results of the Summer Study on
DCGS-IC and DIB1.2 Michael Kramer, The Aerospace Corporation; Chris Bashioum and Kevin Sparks, MITRE Corporation |
|
| Service Modeling in TMOS Using UML 2.0 Francesco Caruso and Josephine Micallef, Telcordia Technologies; Manan Thakkar, Lockheed Martin IS&GS |
|
| Service-Oriented Architecture Issues and Solutions for Mission Critical
Applications Steve Kowalski and Norm Eagleston, Northrop Grumman |
|
| Session 4: Mission Enabling Infrastructures | |
| Chair: Sam Cantrell, The Aerospace Corporation | |
| The Swarm Constellation Simulator: A Brand New, but Still Operationally
Responsive Development Max Pignède, Mario Merri, and Vemund Reggestad, European Space Agency/ESOC; Peter Fritzen and Michael Irvine, VEGA |
|
| Fully Automated Workflow Infrastructure for Provision of Mission Data Products Michael Wendler, Michael Schmidhuber, and Heinz Wacker, DLR Oberpfaffenhofen; Robert Messaros and Boguslaw Lotko, Siemens AG Österreich |
|
| Mission Planning and Scheduling System for NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance
Mission Gonzalo Garcia, Assaf Barnoy, and Theresa Beech, GMV Space System; Rick Saylor and Jennifer Sager Cosgrove, Honeywell Technology Solutions Inc.; Sheila Ritter, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center |
|
| Session 5: Operations Awareness | |
| Chair: Todd Kaiser, The Aerospace Corporation | |
| An Operator-Centered, Model-Based Framework for Ground Segment Design,
Supporting Training and Operations Sandra Steere and Erwann Poupart, Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales; Phillipe Palanque, IRIT |
|
| Conceptual Model for Enterprise Governance Walter Wilson and Brae Irwin, Lockheed Martin |
|
| Manager of Managers Architectures: Providing Enterprise Situational Awareness
to the User Mark Walker, Integral Systems, Inc. |
|
| Session 6: Challenging Applications | |
| Chair: Larry Bergman, Jet Propulsion Laboratory | |
| First Deep Space Node on the Interplanetary Internet: the Deep Impact
Networking Experiment (DINET) Scott Burleigh, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Vinton Cerf, Google, Inc. and Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Adrian Hooke, NASA Headquarters |
|
| The Venμs Mission Operation Concept Idit Wechsler, Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd./MBT Space; Helene Vadon, Centre National d‘Etudes Spatiales |
|
| CCSDS Tracking Data Message Early Implementation Experiences (paper) David Berry, Jet Propulsion Laboratory |
|
Top of Page End of General Workshop End of GSAW2009
Session 7: Standards as Enablers
Chair: Mark Walker, Integral Systems, Inc.
Utilizing Focused Standards as Building Blocks for Satellite Control
Rob Andzik, Real Time Logic Inc.; Geri Chaudhri, The Aerospace Corporation;
Brad Kizzort, Harris Corporation
Knowledge Management within Space Data Systems
Gert Villemos and Steven James, Logica Space; Roberta Mugellesi Dow, ESOC
Beyond the New Architectures – Enabling Rapid System Configurations
Dan Smith, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Session 8: Special Speaker Session
Chair: Rick Donnelly, The Aerospace Corporation
A Ground System for Today and Tomorrow
Pete Rustan, Director of Ground Enterprise Directorate,
National Reconnaissance Office
Session 9: Addressing Future Requirements
Chair: Thomas Gallini, The Aerospace Corporation
Operationally Responsive Space 2015 Ground System Enterprise
Rick Baker, National Security Agency; James Barlow and Kris Woolley, The MITRE Corporation; Ricardo Espindola, The Aerospace Corporation; Mark Franz,
ORS Concept & Solutions; Peter Wegner, ORS Office
SMC/SCNG C2 Framework Study
Thomas Sullivan, The Aerospace Corporation
Commercialization Progress in the Global TT&C Market: An Update of the
State of Commercial TT&C Services for Satellite Launch and Operations
Tom Pirrone, Universal Space Network, Inc.
Session 10: Keynote Session
Chair: Marilee Wheaton, The Aerospace Corporation
Keynote Address (video, no charts)
Paul Nielsen, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Software Engineering Institute
Session 11: Working Groups
Chair: Frank Fong, The Aerospace Corporation
Session 11A: Why Does it Take So Long to Deploy New Technologies in Ground
Segment Data Systems?
Chair: Nestor Peccia, European Space Agency /ESOC
Despite space agencies’ overall technology strategies and long-term plans, including cross-sectorial and sectorial activities, it is obvious that deploying new technology on operational ground data systems takes a long time. It is clear that for some, niche systems technology is deployed faster, but this is the exception and not the general rule.
The main goal of the working group is to set a forum for discussion between space agencies, space organizations, industry, and universities. Technology strategies, long-term plans, how technology is deployed in SW products, and lessons learned will be discussed.
Overview
Technology Insertion in Space Ground Systems
Can We Do Better?
Rick Donnelly, The Aerospace Corporation
Why does it take so long to deploy new technologies into Ground Data Systems
Lydia Dubon, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Why does it take so long to deploy new technology in Ground Segment Data Systems?
Nestor Peccia, ESA/ESOC
Fielding New Ground Systems and Capabilities
Pete Gaffney, Integral Systems
Why does it take so long to deploy new technologies in Ground Segment Data Systems? GMV’S Experience
Gonzalo Garcia, GMV
Session 11B: Human Systems Integration: Tools, Techniques, and Challenges
Ahead
Chair: Suzanne Dawes, The Aerospace Corporation
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in human systems integration. As a result of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board in 2004, updates to the National Security Space Acquisition Policy and a recent Space and Missile Systems Center policy letter on human systems integration, there is an interest and need for the development of tools and techniques that can be used in the development of operational systems that support the skill, knowledge, and abilities of operators, maintainers, and users. Integration of users across system lifecycle represents 40-60 percent of lifecycle costs. Space systems acquisitions have inherent human systems integration challenges: increasing information demands on operators, requirements for operators to perform jobs in new/different ways, continuing pressure to reduce manpower, and a desire to limit the exposure of personnel to threats. This workshop will address how and where human system integration can help in systems development, and will include a mix of presentations and panel discussions.
Overview
Try Before you Buy?! How to get users to buy off on your ”yet to be developed” system
Suzanne Dawes, Stephanie Heers, Tanisha Church, Jesus Rivera, Steven Lazar, and Paul DeNaray, The Aerospace Corporation
Strategies for Communicating Human Systems Integration Findings
Janeen Sharma, Northrop Grumman Corporation
Evaluation Tool for Assessing Completeness and Robustness of Human Systems Integration (HSI) Products
Stephanie Heers and Stacey Schwartz, The Aerospace Corporation
Top of Page
Session 11C: Ground System Transition Working Group
Chairs: Lt. Col. Michael “Lane” Gilchrist, Schriever Air Force Base; Jeffrey Vance, The Aerospace Corporation
The Ground System Transition Working Group brings together diverse panelists and participants to discuss standardization and lessons learned for transitioning space programs from development to operations. The working group will involve a panel and discussion format, and it will be led by Lt. Col. Michael “Lane” Gilchrist, Director, 50th Operations Group Operational Wing Transition Team and Jeff Vance who was the Transition Director for Global Positioning System (GPS) Architecture Evolution Program and Launch, Anomaly, and Disposal Operations transitions conducted last year. Other organizations who either are planning a system transition or who have executed transitions of their systems will be asked to participate on the panel.
This working group will identify common issues and processes to share with the community. The discussion will begin with a presentation of the Air Force Space Command Transition Team concept as presented in Air Force Space Command Instruction 10-604 (AFSPC 10-604) followed by a presentation of how GPS planned and executed its transition. Several other systems at Schriever Air Force Base are planning similar transitions, and Lt. Col. Gilchrist will talk about how they are proceeding, and he will discuss the AFSPCI10-604 that was written as a result of the GPS transition. The other organizations will be asked to briefly explain their transitions. Potential panelists will include members of the 19th Space Operations Squadron (19 SOPS), NASA, NOAA, the CCS-C Program, JPL, and Sirius Satellite Radio. A discussion with the attendees will attempt to distill a set of activities that are essential for a successful transition.
Overview
GSAW Ground System Transition
Working Group: Transition Concepts
Lt. Col. Lane Gilchrist, Schriever Air Force Base
GPS Architecture Evolution Program Transition
Jeff Vance, The Aerospace Corporation
Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) Operations Transition at Schriever AFB
Andrew Rowland, The Aerospace Corporation
Ares I Engineering Support Function
Amy Epps, NASA MSFC EO60
Session 11D: Flight Software Ground System Impacts
Chair: Mark Walker, Integral Systems, Inc.
The Flight Software Ground System Impacts Working Group session will continue topics introduced in the GSAW2008 plenary presentation of the same title prepared jointly by Judy Kerner, Larry Miller, Phil Schmidt (from the Aerospace Corporation), and Mark Walker and James Kramer (from Integral Systems, Inc) which introduced the impacts that increasingly complex spacecraft flight software is having on ground systems. Several examples of significant impacts were identified including late, unexpected flight software changes that had significant cost and schedule impacts.
Five areas for improvement were identified:
1) Communication and collaboration between flight and ground software development teams
2) Flight software development process maturity (like that being applied to ground
system software)
3) Architecting with a system perspective (avoiding local optimizations to flight or ground software)
4) Architecting ground systems with support for multiple missions and mission types
5) Use and development of appropriate standards
Within each of these areas, key questions remain, especially, how we achieve
improvement.
The working group will consist of a panel of experts in the ground system, flight software, and space operations fields. After the initial presentations of their perspectives and ideas for improvement, the panelists and audience will discuss the issues and determine recommendations for reducing flight software impacts on ground systems.
Overview
Flight Software Ground System Impacts (charts presented at GSAW2008)
Mark Walker, Integral Systems
The Marriage of Flight Software to Ground Systems
Gerry Simon, Integral Systems
Flight Software Ground System Impacts - JAXA’s Approach -
Takahiro Yamada, JAXA/ISAS
Session 11E: Architecture-Centric Evolution Working Group 2009
Chairs: Sheri Benator, Sergio Alvarado, Phil Schmidt, John Arcos, Dan Balderston, Shana Lloyd, Maryann Hutchison, Mark Nixon, and Eltefaat Shokri, The Aerospace Corporation; Jeff Estefan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The Architecture-Centric Evolution (ACE) Working Group is the seventh of a GSAW series to promote the central role of software architectures during the acquisition and development of software-intensive systems. The ACE session provides a forum for software-intensive system experts, users, developers, and researchers to collaborate and elucidate high-level recommendations for improving the representation, development, and analysis of software architectures.
This year’s topic will be:
Service-Oriented Architecture-Based Approaches for Architecting Satellite Ground Systems in a Net-Centric Environment – Where we are today
There are various architectural styles that can be applied to satellite ground systems. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is currently being used or being considered for use in several recent or new ground systems or systems of systems. While SOAs offer great promise in long-term interoperability and evolvability for systems and users, many impediments exist, including acquisition stovepiping, lack of coherent information assurance concept-of-operations, immature or unequipped community and enterprise infrastructures, competing vendor products, and proliferation of overlapping standards. In addition, SOA may not always be the best style to apply to every system and experience with applying it in satellite ground systems is still limited. This working group will be focused on sharing experiences of determining when (and if) a SOA-based architecture applies and experiences and lessons learned in developing or prototyping a SOA-based architecture.
The working group will consist of brief presentations and guided discussion with the panel and working group members. It will cover such topics as:
• Where we are in the state of the practice and the state of the art – experiences,
successes, failures, challenges, and lessons
• Applying SOA to satellite ground systems – where does it best apply
• Tradeoffs between quality attributes such as performance, flexibility, extensibility,
sustainability, security, and interoperability
• Near-term opportunities where SOA and net-centricity are emerging
• Architecture strategies for exposing services
• Incorporating legacy applications, reuse, and commercial software into the
architecture
• Single system vs. system of systems development context and considerations
• Effective use of existing and emerging core services
• Acquisition considerations
• Governance considerations
• Process implications: architecture, design, and testing
Overview
Net-Centric or Not Possible
Service Oriented Architectures For Satellite Ground
Michael Kramer, The Aerospace Corporation
State of the SOA in DoD Ground Systems
Maj. Steve Paine, US Air Force
Net-Centricity: Walking the Line Between Performance and Interoperability
Eltefaat Shokri, John Arcos, and Mary Nichols, The Aerospace Corporation
SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) based approaches for architecting satellite ground systems in a net-centric environment – where are we today
Magdi Carlton, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Technology of Institute
Net-Centric
Services for Delivery of Actionable Earth Environmental Data
Morris Brill and Ron Lowther, Northrop Grumman Corporation
Tradeoffs in Using SOA with Legacy Components
Scott Tilley, Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Melon
Service-Oriented Architectures
Nemad Medvidovic, University of Southern California
Service-Oriented Architecture: Just CORBA with Angle Brackets?
Eric Dashofy, The Aerospace Corporation
SOAs, Decentralization, and the Web
Richard Taylor, University of California, Irvine
Session 11F: Supporting “Test Like You Fly” with Simulators and Test Beds
Chairs: Julie White, Sam Majumdar, and Marilyn Dubas, The Aerospace Corporation
“Test Like You Fly” is a test technique that can and should be applied to ground systems development and validation. However, there are compelling reasons to do a fair amount of ground segment testing without the actual flight system to interact with. One reason is that the ground system development may lead or be concurrent with the space system development, so the space articles will not be sufficiently mature or available for use. Another reason is that most space articles have flight hardware safety issues in attempting to execute some activities in an earth gravity and factory test environment, including fault conditions. However, “without the actual flight system” should not mean to test without anything that responds like the flight system. Several major NSS acquisitions have used space article simulators to support testing, but these have been designed without explicitly addressing fidelity requirements needed to best satisfy “like you fly” testing. We propose to assemble a selected group of individuals from industry and Aerospace to identify requirements for and usage of flight vehicle simulators and test beds to support “like you fly” testing of ground systems.
Supporting "Test Like You Fly" with Simulators and Test Beds
Julie White, The Aerospace Corporation
Ground Segment Test Like You Fly (TLYF) Simulation and Testbed Acquisition
Eric Hollmeier, The Aerospace Corporation
Top of Page
Session 12: Evening Session (Parallel Presentations)
Chair: David Bart, The Aerospace Corporation
Session 12A: The Incremental Commitment Model, with Ground Systems
Applications
Special GSAW Speaker: Barry Boehm, Director of Research, Stevens-USC Systems Engineering Research Center
The Incremental Commitment Model (ICM), developed in a recent National Research Council study on integrating human factors into the systems development process, organizes systems engineering and acquisition processes in ways that better accommodate the different strengths and difficulties of hardware, software, and human factors engineering approaches. It also provides points at which they can synchronize and stabilize, and at which their risks of going forward can be better assessed and fitted into a risk-driven stakeholder resource commitment process. It is particularly well adapted to recent DoD acquisition initiatives such as Competitive Prototyping and the Dec. 2008 revision of DoDI 5000.02. USC is currently developing a draft ICM-for-DoD guidebook for DoD.
This talk will summarize the ICM and illustrate its use with short ground systems examples. It will also show how its risk-driven nature enables the use of a decision table that can help new projects converge on a process that fits well with their particular process drivers.
Session 12B: Cloud Computing-Potential Practices and Pitfalls
Chairs: Kurt Froehlich, James Gillis, Craig Lee, and Scott Michel,
The Aerospace Corporation
Cloud Computing has become a topic of much interest in the recent past. Cloud Computing is currently being discussed as the successor to grid computing, cluster computing, and fabric computing. Cloud Computing offers, as fundamental parts, Platform as a Service, Software as a Service, Service Oriented Architecture, etc. Several organizations have created environments, tool kits, and paradigms to implement computing services in various ways. Each implementation was created in order to fill a need in one of three major areas. The taxonomy of the services has been proposed as follows:
Infrastructure: the core computing resources and network fabric for the cloud deployment
Platform: the software infrastructure that allows system administrators and developers to deploy an application to the cloud Applications: the ultimate cloud product - the actual cloud based application that the user touches. These number in the thousands.
Customers trying to implement space system ground segments have many concerns about the approaches one could take to provide capabilities such as processing, data storage and dissemination, command and control, etc.
Cloud Computing – A Tutorial Introduction
Kurt Froehlich, The Aerospace Corporation
State of the Computing as a Service (CaaS) in DoD Ground Systems
Maj. Stephen Paine, USAF
Your Success. Our Cloud.
Darren MacLennan, Salesforce
Secure Cloud Computing: An Architecture Ontology Approach
Kevin Jackson, Dataline
Eucalyptus: an Open-Source Infrastructure for Cloud Computing
Rich Wolski, Chris Grzegorczyk, Dan Nurmi, Graziano Obertelli, Woody Rollins, Sunil Soman, Lamia Youseff, and Dmitrii Zagorodnov,
UCSB
Session 12C: Use of Common C2 Standards across Government/Industry
Chairs: Dan Smith, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and Shane David,
National Reconnaissance Office
This session will focus on the benefits and practicality of using common standards across government organizations. Benefits include both interoperability and the availability of support products form industry which match to the same standards. Delay tolerant networking and the use of the XTCE will be discussed. Another key topic is a discussion of the most appropriate forum for continued progress in the selection of standards and timetables for their joint adoption.
Top of Page
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Session 13: Keynote Session
Chair: Mary Rich, The Aerospace Corporation
Keynote Address (video, movie clip 1, movie clip 2)
Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.; Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Session 14: Panel Discussion: Focusing on the User
(video)
Chair: Dan Smith, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Moderator
Zane Faught
General Manager, Computers and Software Division, The Aerospace Corporation
Panelists
Barry Boehm
Director of Research, Stevens-USC Systems Engineering Research Center
Lt. Col. DeAnna Burt
Commander, 2nd Space Operations Squadron, Schriever Air Force Base
Nestor Peccia
Head, Data Systems Infrastructure Division, Ground Engineering Department,
European Space Agency/ESOC
Dan Smith
Manager, Goddard Mission Services Evolution Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Carl Sunshine
Principal Engineer, TSAT Program, The Aerospace Corporation
Session 15: Summary Session
Chair: Frank Fong, The Aerospace Corporation
Session 11A: Why Does it Take So Long to Deploy New Technologies in Ground
Segment Data Systems?
Nestor Peccia, European Space Agency/ESOC
Session 11B: Human Systems Integration: Tools, Techniques, and Challenges
Ahead
Suzanne Dawes, The Aerospace Corporation
Session 11C: Ground System Transition Working Group
Lt. Col. Michael “Lane”Gilchrist, Schriever Air Force Base; Jeffrey Vance,
The Aerospace Corporation
Session 11D: Flight Software Ground System Impacts
Mark Walker, Integral Systems, Inc.
Session 11E: Architecture-Centric Evolution Working Group 2009
Maryann Hutchison, The Aerospace Corporation
Session 11F: Supporting “Test Like You Fly” with Simulators and Test Beds
Eric Hollmeier , The Aerospace Corporation
Workshop Summary
Dan Balderston, The Aerospace Corporation
Closing Remarks
Anil Agrawal, GSAW2009 General Chair, The Aerospace Corporation
Classified Session - Held at The Aerospace Corporation
Session C16: Keynote Session
Introduction and Announcements
Jonathan Becker, Classified Session Chair, The Aerospace Corporation
Welcome Address
Mal De Ponte, Senior Vice President, National Systems Group, The Aerospace Corporation
Keynote Address
Michele Brunngraber, Director, Operations, National Reconnaissance Office
Session C17: Keynote Session
Chair: Mal De Ponte, The Aerospace Corporation
Keynote Address
Col. Steve Smith,
Director, System Engineering for Ground, National Reconnaissance Office
Session C18: Plenary Session
Chair: Julie Fant, The Aerospace Corporation
Presentations
Session C19: Plenary Session
Chair: Rick Johnson, The Aerospace Corporation
Presentations
Closing Remarks
Networking Hour
Questions? Contact gsaw@aero.org