Responsive systems comparison method: Dynamic insights into designing a satellite radar system
Name
Hastings_Responsive systems.pdf
Size
3.29 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
9f06165c2661bd386ac32b63241d04b5
Author(s)
Ross, Adam Michael
McManus, Hugh L.
Rhodes, Donna H.
Hastings, Daniel E.
Long, Andrew
Date Issued
September 2009
Journal
Proceedings of the AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition
Publisher
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Citation
Ross, Adam M. et al. "Responsive systems comparison method: Dynamic insights into designing a satellite radar system." in Proceedings of the AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition, Pasadena, CA, 14-17 September, 2009, AIAA.
Version
Author's final manuscript
Abstract
Often shifts in context, such as changes in budgets, administrations, and warfighter
needs, occur more frequently than high-cost space-based system development timelines. In
order to ensure the successful development and operation of such systems, designers must
balance between anticipating future needs and meeting current constraints and expectations.
This paper describes the application of Multi-Epoch Analysis on a previously introduced
satellite radar system program case study, quantitatively analyzing the impact of changing
contexts and preferences on “best” system designs for the program. Each epoch
characterizes a fixed set of context parameters, such as available technology, infrastructure,
environment, and mission priorities. For each epoch, several thousand design alternatives
are parametrically assessed in terms of their ability to meet imaging, tracking, and
programmatic expectations using Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration. While insights
on tradeoffs are discovered within a particular epoch, further dynamic insights become
apparent when comparing tradespaces across multiple epochs. The Multi-Epoch Analysis
reveals three key insights: 1) the ability to quantitatively investigate the impact of
“requirements” across many systems and contexts, 2) the ability to quantitatively identify
value “robust” systems, including both passively robust and changeable systems, and 3) the
ability to quantitatively identify key system tradeoffs and compromises across stakeholders
and missions.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
MIT Sociotechnical Systems Research Center
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://www.aiaa.org/ProceedingsDetail.aspx?id=3895
