MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326553357 · doi:10.2514/6.2008-3503

Functional Architecting Techniques - Applications to Space Operations Design

2008· article· en· W2326553357 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpaceOps 2008 Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)Computer architectureEmbedded systemSystems engineeringEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, space systems have been developed using a physical architecture as the primary basis for design; structured functional architectures were the purview of network and software systems designers. Space operations design has thus frequently followed a hardware operations-centric thread. After Mobile Satellite Ventures (MSV) selected Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems to build and operate a Space Based Network (SBN) for their next generation Mobile Satellite System, Boeing determined that functional architecting techniques could bring added benefits to the system and operations development program. Boeing’s MSV SBN is a large scale space system that when deployed will provide ubiquitous 4G mobile coverage to the entire North American continent and beyond. The SBN features two large Boeing 702 GeoMobile satellites as well as 4 ground based beamforming-equipped dual gateway stations located across the US and Canada. This system and operations design effort and the relatively short time frame allowed by the customer’s business plan has called for rapid implementation of the functional architecture development process. Functional decomposition was performed on the MSV system, allowing development of a functional architecture for a system that had no previous architectural precedence. Additionally, the MSV program elected to use both the IDEF0 modeling method and the integration of DOORS® (for requirements management) with SLATE FI (functional architecture definition) for formalization of the functional architecture. This enabled the ability to import system requirements into SLATE FI to achieve an integrated architecture. This integration allowed the functional architecting process to rapidly support both the system and systems operations design processes, adding to the robustness and quality of derived program requirements and operational concepts. Derived from explicit operational scenarios, systems operations functions were explicitly defined and linked to the system architecture, with clear mapping to system functions and requirements, as well as allocated to hardware and software elements. Operational products for the Space Based Network, such as procedures, tools and training, could thus be built up around the operations aspects of the functional architecture in a straightforward manner. Boeing’s MSV program has been a pathfinder for the application of functional architecting to space systems and operations design. The functional architecture developed for the MSV program has provided many benefits to the overall system engineering process. Boeing has also integrated the customer’s outer shell network architecture and CONOPS into the SBN architecture and operations model which has significantly reduced program risk. While the MSV SBN is a space-based communications system, the operations architecting techniques demonstrated are fully applicable to other space applications; these methods can benefit future system developments in both the commercial and civil space operations arenas.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it