Architecting Cellularized Space Systems using Model-Based Design Exploration

Aleksandr A. Kerzhner, Michel D. Ingham, Mohammed O. Khan, Jaime Ramirez, Javier De Luis, Jeremy Hollman, Steven Arestie, David Sternberg
2013 AIAA SPACE 2013 Conference and Exposition   unpublished
Nomenclature α = function of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) β = complexity of each connection between pairs of components γ = 1/n Π i = expected profit for missions of type i A = Design Structural Matrix C AIT = assembly, integration, and test cost C D = development cost of each satlet variant C NR = non-recurring development costs C PMSE = aggregate system level PMSE estimate C i R = recurring costs (manufacturing costs, operations costs, and launch costs) C 1 = complexity due to number and
more » ... due to number and flight readiness of components C 2 = complexity due to pair-wise component interactions Component-centric trade space diagrams, such as Figure 6 , exist for each satlet subsystem in the SysML model. The aggregation of this information is typically output as tables describing aspects of the trade space, such as the function-to-component mapping and the component-tomass mapping. Figure 5. Definition of the aggregate system and mission functions in the SysML model. The mission functions are based on the ConOps model. Figure 6. Satlet power subsystem component trade space in the SysML model. Component parameters and mapping to functions are captured for each component in the trade space model. E. Automated Trade Exploration This section describes the automated trade exploration tool, its overall architecture, and the trade space exploration approach. This section is broken up into four parts-the first describes the tool architecture, the different components that make up the tool, and how they interact. The Downloaded by Aleksandr Kerzhner on September 18, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org |
doi:10.2514/6.2013-5371 fatcat:nsad3g263zb47df737zuov4w24