Exploring the science trade space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

Abstract

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team. The Architecture Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an A-Team study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (Concept Maturity Level 1), initial feasibility assessment (Concept Maturity Level 2), and trade space exploration (Concept Maturity Level 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including the use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram. In the process of developing the Science Return Diagram, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid toward developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 sciencefocused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions, and reveal the mission concept's most compelling science. This article will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.

Model‐based‐systems‐engineering for conceptual design: An integrative approach

“…Specifically, the space domain contributed multiple insights and even Return-on-Investment estimates. 16 Early Team-X 3 publications by JPL, and later the Team-A approach 19 ing facilities had been explored as well. 22,23 However, these efforts highlight the need for better processes and methodologies for MBCD.…”

“…Specifically, the space domain contributed multiple insights and even Return‐on‐Investment estimates 16 . Early Team‐X 3 publications by JPL, and later the Team‐A approach 19 has demonstrated reduced time and cost of conceptual design studies and applicability for architecture and trade studies. JPL further addressed Conceptual‐Design embeddedness into the full system lifecycle, described as a set of concept maturation iterations, 20 from Cocktail Napkin to Integrated Design.…”

A process model for concurrent conceptual design of space systems

“…Within a few years the approach has proven to greatly reduce time and cost of conceptual design studies 3 . In a more recent development, called the Team‐A, the approach is also used for architecture and trade studies 4,5 . Over the last 25 years, many space agencies have adopted this approach to conduct co‐located feasibility studies in the definition phase of space missions, because it allows them to incorporate the various discipline experts for the evaluation of one or more conceptual designs 6,7 .…”