SOMO Stan Newberry Chief Also present Customer Commitment/Technology people Platitudes 100 active customers 180 total customers Some foreign customers Customer is not PI but NASA Project manager Price not nature of service is major problem PSLA and Project Data Management Needs to be dynamic A lot of SOMO advisory boards CSOC-SOMO Division unclear Operations 75% is CSOC Budget fractions would be helpful Doesn't know about IPG -- Information Power Grid Thinks it is NREN Thinks that commercial market not developed as fast as expected What is dreamtime Compare with High Energy Physics Technology/Standards effort threatened is IOA SOMO or CSOC? Why is CSWG CSOC not SOMO? Fixed costs problem Policy Issue: Support fixed costs by forcing all to use assets OR allow each PI to optimize TDRS dominates NASA Infrastructure (it is satellite network) Need to quantify these dilemmas In choosing solution, need to compare a) allow each PI to optimize b) Choose on basis of total cost to NASA (includes fixed costs) Might be b) forces PI to use legacy decision if look at cost today However if choose b) today, might build capabilities/expertise to allow reduced cost in future Cannot close anything -- SOMO rather cynical Tom Costello SOMO Technology Ground is Commercial NISN NASA Integrated Services Network Claim commercial and multimedia Near Earth Gigabit/Sec Deep Space Gigabit/day Web-based standards in 2005; NASA does not believe in it Security .... Technology Development is NASA through 4 centers 7% of SOMO budget is technology CSOC does technology assesment not development SOMO technology is space hardware jocks 5 campaigns Sensors Space Internet customize Internet technology for low space bandwidth or use commercial Virtual Space Presence Visualization of space ops should use portals Autonomous Mission Operations Advanced Guidance, Navigation and Control NASA finds it hard to track technology CODE S Space Science CODE Y Earth Science Technology links to NASA Labs but no technology links to universities Appears to have weak links to ARC (NASA Ames) NRA2-37143 from Ames does not mention Space Internet!!! SOMO works for NASA Enterprises Not true for technoogy Maybe true (albeit broken) for Space Science SOMO does not want us to meddle CSOC Progress -- Nelson Will purchase services from Dreamtime Dreamtime will digitize and provide NASA data Web based Baseline Architecture 00 and 99 starts 99 IMOC (Mission Control) renamed MSO (Mission Services Delivery) IMOC/MSO Marty Skudlarek What does user want? Common services C and C Planning Flight Dynamics Quality of Service Hardware Software Operators Training for your operators Targetting iMOC to small missions Suggests commercialize flight dynamics Should work with Gannon IPG Moore ANL Gryphon Grid Forum David Bushnell www.sem.bowiestate.edu SEM is CS Natural Sciences Math 740 students 40 faculty 5 year ago got about $2.5M per year from NASA/NSF 6 more years Srivastava chair of CS At Bowiestate since 1971 CS got CSAB accreditation NSF Infrastructure 500 students (out of 740 SEM) in CS 12 (out of 41 SEM) faculty in CS More Female than Male students Reasonable practical CS research Quite a bit of educational technology Collaboration with College Park Maryland, Hiring masters students as faculty 3 courses per faculty taught per semester BSOCC mission control for small science instrument SAMPEX Students get same training/same certification tests as Goddard people 15 students certified so far Similar Colorado and Berkeley activities 4 OK candidates Science Advocacy Customer Service CSOC does not have internal wireless ST-5 is a technology not science mission Used to evaluate CSOC process Mission Services High level and Data Services Raw Network You get charged for what you ordered NOT what you use No incentive to use more time John Dalton SOMO good Brad Johnson Used to compete with CSOC Help PI with Instrument design and Spacecraft launch Tighe: Polidan: GSFC Scientiat Kronos looks at accretion disks with 4 instruments small cost capped mission Ohio state PI with GSFC science and mission support Funny orbit can use commercial ground stations always observable from earth pereceived risk - "lights out" not really risky but NASA HQ perceives fully autonomous as risky Look at spacescraft every few days and lose data if enters safe mode -- alert beeper Not interested in catalog Wants knowledgeable support Largest explorer is cost capped at $150M $50M launch vehicle $35M satellite Need margins/descope options to cope with cost/weight overruns CSOC has potential to be vendor of choice for small missions 2 years ago -- NASA bid was 2 times next highest bidder and did not meet requirements. Will put out a RFI and let CSOC bid. Dennis Lee: Swales Aerospace SMEX Small Explorer HESSI Lin UCB -- exceeded cost due to instrument problems Mission operations at UCB using FAST GALEX Martin Caltech Mission operations from "orbital" in Virginia Orbital has 7 by 24 hour support anyway Uses USN and TDRSS (CSOC) CSOC did not respond to RFI for X band Both use NORAD for orbit analysis Burley: GSFC Science IMAGE project Exists -- 2 year life GSFC mission operations -- 8 hours 5 daya a week Claims security problem with firewalls Mission operation is 6% of MO and DA budget -- $600K per year Tompkins -- GLAST support needed through 2015 Maybe Italian support for mission support GLAST is expensive ($400M) so must be low risk CSOC not pro-active CSOC cannot get "ballpark" numbers easily Security Issues ITAR Hackers getting into mission control Jim Marcely CSOC Goal: In 10 years, save $580M by commercialization Sell NASA serv ices to other space customers ID/IQ is streamlining contracts First data and then mission services ID/IQ; Prequalifies capable providers for outsourcing Task orders will take 2-3 months; not 9 months as now Use for initial CSOC mission set and then later ones such as ST-5 NASA SOMO will oversee evaluation by "third party" Market to European Space Agency Price per minute/event/pass Seismic Data use of space network could generate $10M's held up by FCC Privitization of ground network expected to be easier What about earth observing missions maybe need real time response e.g. to feed data to weather forecasts International poartners What about Compression research implies compression dangerous! Holmes from NASA HQ IPA from John Hopkins (FUSE support) PI will work trade-off So far HQ have not overruled PI but reserves right to do this Does HQ have expertise 100 space science on book 30 flying earth science fewer than this but large Each unique Cookie cutter approach for mission operations not suitable Moores's law implies change inevitable George Abbey -- CSOC University Interactions USOP uses local interactions OK if outreach has research at MIT but plans no more NASA switching to more smaller missions (done by AO) about 16% AO in about 2003 If CSOC does not meet savings, then they get paid for overage but NO fee on overage. Fee on base contract may also be reduced as a punishment. End September, October, Early November Suggest Ames Invite