1. Constellation Program
Planning & Control
Project Management Challenge
Charlie Stegemoeller
Director, Constellation Program Planning and Control
Wayne Thomas
Chief, Constellation Contracts Integration

2. Constellation Program Planning and
Control
Objective:
• Share the perspectives and lessons from standing up the
Constellation Program within today’s Agency policies
Topics:
• Overview of the Constellation Program
– Organizational Relationships
– Lessons Learned
• Program Contracts Integration
• Implementation of 7120.5D
2

3. Overview of Constellation Program
Timeline of Program:
• Vision for Space Exploration – Issued January 2004
• Precursors for Orion and Ares Projects initiated (kickoff of RFPs) –
Spring of 2004
• Exploration Systems Architecture Study – conducted
Spring/Summer 2005
• Constellation Program Manager named October 2005
• First Cx Control Board – January 2006
• Cx Formulation Authorization Document - August 2006
• Contracts for Orion and Ares systems start – Summer 2006
• Cx Program Systems Requirements Review – Fall 2006
• Cx Program Systems Definition Review – March 2008
• Project PDRs underway
• Program PAR planned for Summer 2009
3

4. Building on Proven Technologies
120
Launch Vehicle Comparisons Crew
Lunar
Lander
Lander
Earth Departure
Overall Vehicle Height in Meters
90 Stage (EDS) (1 J-2X)
253 tons LOx/LH2
S-IVB
Upper Stage (1 J-2 engine)
(1 J-2X) 110 t Lox/LH2
127 tons LOx/LH2
60 S-II
(5 J-2 engines)
450 t LOx/LH2
Core Stage
(6 RS-68B engines)
1590 tons LOx/LH2
5 - segment
shuttle derived S-IC
30
solid rocket (5 F-1)
booster 5.5 segment 1770 t LOx/RP
2 RSRBs
Space Shuttle Ares I Ares V Saturn V
Height: 56m Height: 98m Height: 109m Height: 111m
Gross Liftoff Mass: 2040 tons Gross Liftoff Mass: 910 tons Gross Liftoff Mass: 3310t Gross Liftoff Mass: 2950 tons
55 tons cargo to moon 45 tons to moon
25 tons to LEO 22 tons to LEO 66 tons to moon in dual- 119 tons to LEO
launch mode with Ares 1
150 tons to LEO 4

5. NASA’s Exploration Roadmap
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25…
Initial Capability Lunar Capability
Lunar Robotic Missions Lunar Outpost Buildup
R&T Development on ISS for Risk Reduction
Commercial Orbital Transportation for ISS
Space Shuttle Operations
Ares and Orion Development
Operations Capability Development
(EVA Systems, Ground Ops, Mission Ops)
Ares & Orion Production and Operations
Altair Lunar Lander Development
Ares V & Earth Departure Stage
Lunar Surface Systems Development
5

6. Systems of the Constellation Program
Initial Capability Lunar Capability
Orion
Ares I
Altair
EVA
EVA
Ares V
Ground Operations Mission Operations
Lunar Surface
6

7. Agency/Constellation Organization
Level 1 NASA
Exploration Systems Space Operations Science Mission Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate Mission Directorate Directorate Mission Directorate
Constellation Program
Level 2
Program
Manager
Safety,
Program Operations, Systems
Reliability & Information
Planning & Testing & Engineering
Quality Systems
Control Integration & Integration
Assurance
Level 3
Extravehicular Ground Mission Lunar Surface
Ares Project Orion Project Activities Operations Operations Altair Project Systems
Project Project Project Project
7

8. Program Management Relationships
NASA Administrator
Deputy
NASA Associate
Administrator (AA) Program
Commitment
Agreement (PCA)
Space Operations Mission Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate Associate Directorate Associate Center Directors
Administrator (SOMD AA) Administrator (ESMD AA)
Formulation
Authorization Level 1 Program
Document (FAD) Requirements & Constellation Systems
Funding Division NASA
Program Headquarters
Planning &
Reporting
Constellation Program Project insight and
Manager information flow
Project Level 2 Project
Plans & Reporting Requirements & Funding
Coordinates Constellation Project
Supports Managers 8

9. CONSTELLATION’S WORKFORCE - CENTERS
9
As of 11/11/08

10. CONSTELLATION’S WORKFORCE -
CONTRACTORS
10
As of 11/11/08

11. CxP Integration Roadmap – Path Forward
Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
ARES I-X VM-2 AA-1 AA-3
Flight Tests
PA & Simulations PA-1 VM-1
RP
OP
GR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR QPMR
ESMD
RO
AV TRR TRR TRR TRR
MA Program
4/17-18 8/6-7 10/28-29 12/9-10r
L SRR/PPAR SDR/PAR PDR PDR
Synchronization CDR SIR
Initial Capability
APMC 6/10 APMC
SDR APMC u/r APMC CDR
Projects 10/11/07 Synchronization Synchronization
KDP 1
KDP 2
6/16-17
• Orion IC Formulation Phase IC Implementation Phase
• Ares
• Ground Ops
KDP C
KDP D
KDP B
• Mission Ops Project PDRs/NARs SIR
• EVA Systems
Project SDRs/PNARs Project CDRs/PRRs
Ares Orion MO GO EVA
u/r
Design &
Analysis IDAC 3 IDAC-4A & B IDAC 5 IDAC 6 IDAC 7
E
X
HLR Lunar
E Program LCCR
Checkpoint
6/18-20 SRR 6/10
Lunar Capability
C LC Formulation Phase
Human Lunar
U Return
T • Ares V MCR APMC
KDP A
Lunar Projects SRR
Pre-Project 6/18-20
I • Altair
Formulation Project Formulation
u/r
O Core Lunar
N Infrastructure
• Lunar Surface LSS Review
Systems Pre-Project Formulation
R OMB
Passback
2009 President
Budget Submit
2009 PBS
E to Congress
OMB 2010 President
S 2010 PBS PMR ’08/PPBE ‘10 Passback Budget Submit
to Congress
O OMB 2011 President
2011 PBS PMR ’09/PPBE ‘11 Passback Budget Submit
U to Congress OMB 2012 President
You are here.
R 2012 PBS PMR ’10/PPBE ‘12
Passback Budget Submit
to Congress OMB
C 2013 PBS Passback
2013 President
Budget Submit
PMR ’11/PPBE ‘13
E to Congress
2014 PBS
S PMR ’12/PPBE ‘14
11
Ares Test Flight Quarterly Program Management Review PSRR / PPAR – Program System Requirements Review / Preliminary Program Approval Review LSCR – Lunar Surface Concept Review Constellation Program Planning &Control
PSDR / PAR – Program System Definition Review / Program Approval Review HLR / SRR – Human Lunar Return / System Readiness Review
Pad Abort (PA)/Ascent Abort (AA) Top Risk Review
PDR / NAR – Preliminary Design Review / Non-advocate Review
Draft Version 33
Virtual Mission Agency Program Management Council CDR / PRR - Critical Design Review / Production Readiness Review Updated: December 15, 2008

12. Stakeholders
White House
•OSTP Congress
•OMB •Members Administrator OCE
•OIG • Staffers
•GAO
PAO PA&E
Office
NASA HQ
of
Mission Procure- S&MA
ment
Directorates
•Programs OLA OGC
JSC &
•Shuttle
KSC WSTF ARC
•ISS
GSFC GRC External
NASA Centers Review
Committees Private Industry
LaRC Dryden
SSC MSFC JPL
&
MAF 12

13. PP&C Lessons Learned
• Start-up is hard
• Concurrent initiation AND accomplishment of work takes time
and talent
– Best practice – develop a plan and enact the plan
• Staffing is always key
• Develop requirements first – then review for accuracy
• Don’t underestimate the time it takes to coordinate among
stakeholders
• Don’t underestimate the number of stakeholders
• Solicit feedback from external parties and greybeards
• Policy enactment is more complicated than policy
development
• Open communication is a force multiplier
13

14. Program Contracts
Integration
Project Management Challenge
Wayne Thomas
Chief, Contracts Integration Office

15. Acquisition Management Challenge
• Programs supported by multiple NASA Centers have an
integration challenge to maintain a strategic program
focus in contracts
• Contracts are typically awarded and managed at the
project level by center procurement offices supporting
the individual projects
• Need to ensure that Program and Agency objectives are
supported by the Program’s contracts
• Need to ensure that contracts operate together in an
efficient and cohesive fashion to successfully execute
the Program
15

16. Major Constellation Prime Contracts
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
Ares I-X Ares I-Y Or-1 Or-2 Or-3 Or-4 Or-5 Or-6 Or-7 Or-8
Cx Milestones
IOC FOC PMR 08
Rev 1
Ground Operations
SPOC JOFOC for Cx Tasks
GO ‘EGLS’ Cx Processing contract
Mission Operations
Facilities Development and Ops (FDOC)
Mission Support Ops (MSOC)
Integrated Mission Ops Contract (IMOC)
NBL/SVMF Ops Contract (NSOC)
Orion
Sched A DDT&E for Orion
*Sched B Production
* Sched C Sustaining Eng *Options
EVA
DDT&E/Prod for 1 flt, Conf 1
st
Option 2 Config 1 Prod and Sustaining
Option 1 DDT&E/Prod for 1st flt, Conf. 2
Ares 1
First Stage DDT&E
First Stage Production/Sustaining Eng Plan in Development
J-2X DDT&E
J2-X Production/Sustaining Eng. Plan in Development
Upper Stage Production
16
US Instrument Unit Avionics Production

17. Program Level Contract Integration
• CxP maintains a Program-level interface for
acquisitions across NASA with a dedicated
contracts integration function
• Staff function within PP&C office
– Provides single point for acquisition related matters at
the Program level
– Program level acquisition interface with Level 3
projects and with HQ Mission Directorates and Office
of Procurement
17

18. Contracts Integration office
• Contracts Integration
– Primary role is interface with CxP contracting offices at the
various centers
– Facilitate Program-level understanding of and consistency in
strategic contract features and processes
– Facilitate Program-level approvals
– Integrate relevant Program procurement information
– Support Agency-level acquisition planning for the Program
• Does not perform Contracting Office functions:
– Execute or manage contracts
– Focus is on programmatic issues not on procurement processes
and regs
18

19. Agency Strategic Acquisition Planning
• Program acquisition strategy must consider the broader
agency impacts of the planned acquisitions
• Outcomes of a good strategy
– Cost effective execution of projects and programs
– Facilitate workforce transitions
– Maintain key NASA in-house capabilities
– Support NASA procurement tenets
– Help support Agency goal of ten healthy centers
• Agency-level reviews ensure broader aspects are
considered
– ESMD/SOMD Joint Integration Control Board (JICB) acquisition
reviews
– Acquisition Strategy Meeting (ASM) - 7120.5D milestone
19

20. Lessons Learned
• Understand the difference between the contracts integration
role and the procurement office role – they should be
complimentary
• Key to success is communication –
– Resist creating new Level 2 reporting or approval of requirements
– Use existing communication forums and data sources to the
maximum extent
• There are many stakeholders and they can have different
interests and priorities for acquisition strategies
– Expect acquisition strategy to evolve and mature to meet the broad
range of project, program, and agency needs
– Pre-briefs are useful to frame issues and develop the acquisition
strategy
20

21. Implementing
7120.5D
Project Management Challenge
Charlie Stegemoeller
Director, Constellation Program Planning and Control

22. Constellation PP&C Organization
Director
Deputy Director
Associate Director
Asst. for Security Mgmt. ZB111
Schedules, Cost
Management Contracts Integration Estimating, and Resources
Systems Office Assessments (SCEA) Management Office
ZB2 ZB ZB/LW ZB/LZ
Exploration Systems Assessment Team CxP Level II / Projects Level III
Configuration Assessment Team
Procurement Office
Management
Cost Estimating Team Level 2 Integration
and Analysis
Information Systems Ground Operations
Project Procurement Program Integration
IMS/EVM Team Program Integration
IMS/EVM Team Project
Project
Ares Project Analysis Integration Other Projects
Procurement Office Analysis Integration Lunar Lander-Surf. Sys. etc
Orion Project
Orion Project
PP&C Office is responsible for tracking the
implementation of NPD 7120.5 – policies,
processes, tools, and records
22

23. Program Life Cycle
23
23

24. NPR 7120.5D Lessons Learned
• Thoroughly study the NPR 7120.5D requirements and associated
documentation
• Your customers are the Convening Authorities –
– Know what they want
• Document your internal and independent review processes,
– Identify implementation of requirements
• Do not hold the SRB Site Review before you have a validated,
integrated technical, cost and schedule baseline
• Proactively set the agenda for the SRB Site Review
– Set the stage, boundaries, objectives
• Although NPR 7120.5D requirements can be “document centric,” the
SRB is not all that interested in your documents
• Find a way to minimize the overhead of providing data to the SRB
• Understand the capabilities and limitations of the confidence level
tools you are using
24

25. Standard Engagement Approach
Nominal Timeline Road to KDP KDP
Project Internal Review cycle Project & SRB Site Review Findings and APMC
(2-4 months) Prep for KDP (5-10 days) Response (1/2 day)
(30-120 days) (<30 days)
• SRB (& others) participate as • Respond to IR • Project presents • Quick report on major • Site Review + 30
observers during review actions summary of T, C, findings to Project, days
• Project includes T, C, S, R • Respond to RFAs S, R of Project Center, etc. Site • Final statement of
entry/exit criteria as part of • Complete actions (presents Deltas review <24 hours) findings and
Internal Board Event for KDP since IR) • Briefings to Project – recommendations
• At conclusion of IR, map path • A: reconcile all • Respond to RFAs Program – ESMD on KDP
to KDP related • Identify Open Work • Prep for APMC
• SRB submits RFAs post- cost/schedule • TA’s + Centers • Include Center’s POC
conclusion of board and states products with report as part of as needed
opinion of Project readiness to SRB team site review • Develop
proceed to KDP • SRB reports recommendations for
• A: Projects develop findings of APMC
cost/schedule products as cost/schedule • Conduct DPMC
required reconciliation
• Project submits Quick Look
report up the chain at IR = Internal Review
conclusion of Board & A: Action to Develop Process/Timeline R+R for ICE; Conf Level Products
recommendation to proceed.
25

26. Standard Review Board
Engagement Timeline
SRB observer role
“One pager” by Project, includes plan to KDP
S/S Reviews
Internal
Project PDR
RFAs Findings
SRB assessment
of entry criteria to SRB Site “One pager” + 1 day (joint activity)
Project/Program Review • Quick status
• Only big issues, not concerns/observations
Integrated
• Initial ICE
SRB
PDR/NAR KDP
1–6
months 5 – 10 days 30 days
•Technical
•Cost
“Pre-work” •Schedule
•Risk Briefings: P/p, CMC, DPMC, APMC
Model Development Joint
with IPAO/Project
ICA/ICE/ISA reconciliations Independent Life Cycle Review (ILCR)
26

27. Driving Conditions for Constellation
• Program stood-up after Ares and Orion projects
• Agency re-alignment of policies and assignments
– Concurrent with Program start-up
– Ten healthy centers
– 7120.5 Rev D issuance
• Performance measurement tools actively in design and
development
– EVMS
– Confidence levels
– Standing review boards
• Shuttle Program definition of retirement evolving
– Resultant transfer of fixed costs
Fortunately . . . . . political support remained strong
27

28. PP&C Lessons Learned - Recap
• Start-up is hard
• Concurrent initiation AND accomplishment of work takes time
and talent
– Best practice – develop a plan and enact the plan
• Develop requirements first – then review for accuracy
• Staffing is always key
• Don’t underestimate the time it takes to coordinate among
stakeholders
• Don’t underestimate the number of stakeholders
• Open communication is a force multiplier
• Policy enactment is more complicated than policy
development
• Solicit feedback from external parties and greybeards 28

29. Questions?
Constellation main page:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/const
ellation/main/index.html
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ho
me/index.html

30. Back up
30

31. Project Roles
Host Project Requirements
Project Project Systems
Center Documentation
• Ascent Module • CxP 70000 Constellation
Altair JSC • Descent Module Architecture Requirements
• Airlock Document (CARD)
• First Stage Element • CxP 70057 Ares Projects
• Upper Stage Element Plan
Ares I MSFC • Upper Stage Engine • CxP 72034 Ares SRD
• Orion/Ares vehicle integration
• Earth Departure Stage • CxP 70000 Constellation
• Loiter Skirt Architecture Requirements
Ares V MSFC • Interstage Document (CARD)
• Solid Rocket Boosters
• Core Stage
• Suit Systems (Configurations 1 and 2) • CxP 72179 EVA Systems
Extravehicular • Vehicle Interface Systems Project Plan
Activities (EVA) JSC • Tool and Equipment Systems • CxP 72002 EVA Systems
Systems SRD
31

32. Project Roles continued
Host Project Requirements
Project Project Systems
Center Documentation
Spacecraft Processing Element (SPE) CxP 72120 Ground
Solid Rocket Processing Element (SRPE) Operations Project (GOP)
Vertical Integration Element (VIE) Project Plan
Mobil Launch Element (MLE) CxP 72006 GOP SRD
Ground Launch Pad Element (LPE)
KSC Spacecraft Recover and Retrieval Element
Operations (GO)
(SRRE)
Command, Control & Communications
Element (CCCE)
Operations Support Element (OSE)
Elements (includes habitable volumes) CxP 70000 Constellation
Lunar Surface
JSC Surface Mobility Systems Architecture Requirements
Systems
In-situ Resource Development Systems Document (CARD)
Mission Control Center System (MCCS) CxP 72165 Mission
Mission Mission Operations Reconfiguration System Operations (MO) Project
JSC
Operations (MO) (MORS) Plan
Constellation Training Element CxP 72136 MO SRD
Orion – Launch Abort System (LAS) CxP 72008 CEV Project
(Crew Crew Module (CM) Plan
JSC
Exploration Service Module (SM) CxP 72000 CEV SRD
Vehicle (CEV)) Spacecraft Adapter (SA) 32

33. Flow of Agency and ESMD
Requirements
U.S. Space Exploration Policy
(NP-2004-01-334-HQ)
NASA Authorization Act of 2005
(P.L.109-155)
Exploration Needs, Goals, and Objectives
(ESMD-ENGO-01.08 Rev. A)
Exploration Architecture Requirements
Document (EARD)
(ESMD-EARD-08.07 Rev. A)
Constellation Program Plan
(CxP 70003)
Constellation Architecture Requirements
Document (CARD)
33
(CxP 70000)

34. Program Authorization
• ESMD Formulation Authorization Document (FAD), July
31, 2006
– Authorized formulation of Orion, Ares I, Ground Operations,
Mission Operations and Extravehicular Activity Projects
• ESMD Lunar Capability FAD, August 25, 2008
– Authorized formulation of Ares V and Altair Projects
• CxP Program Plan approved by ESMD AA, October 17,
2008
• Program Commitment Agreement to be authorized at
completion of CxP Program Approval Review (key
decision point 1)
34