Lt Col Taylor Locker - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 43
About This Presentation
Title:

Lt Col Taylor Locker

Description:

Department of Defense R&D Responsive Spaceflight (RRS) VSS VSE Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM Lt Col Kirk Sharp – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 44
Provided by: responsiv
Category:
Tags: col | locker | taylor

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Lt Col Taylor Locker


1
Department of DefenseRDResponsiveSpaceflight
(RRS)
VSS
VSE
Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission
Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM
Lt Col Kirk Sharp Senior Program Advisor DoD STP,
Kirtland AFB, NM
2
Why Were We at SMC/TD?
  • Propose a holistic concept for repeatable
    launching of Space RDTE missions in 12-18
    months, using mechanisms that are in place today
  • A solution other than give me money, people,
    and a launch vehicle, and I can in X years . . .
  • Proposal solves the business (of spaceflight)
    problem with standard customer - service provider
    relationship
  • Proposal requires customer funding source only
  • Accesses existing capacity across the ST
    community
  • Need a champion to pursue this RRS strategy, or
    redirection i.e. Gen Worden gave the challenge

3
Bottom Line Up Front
  • 1218 month ST spaceflight can be done today
    with a team
  • Finding a solution has been hard, because no
    single organization has all the RRS capability in
    place right now
  • One could in future w new resources, IDIQ source
    selections, etc
  • Thus, why not, an Alliance of Govt (all DoD or
    para-DoD) Orgs/ Labs, each coming to the table,
    to acquire any mission now?
  • STP has (at least the working level) coordinated
    with AFRL, LANL, NRL, RDSMO, RSLP, SDL and
    received a positive response (initial commitment)
    to propose this RRS Alliance
  • Willingness to use their existing finance (FM)
    and contracts (PK) mechanisms (e.g.,
    funding/contract vehicles) to get work done today
  • Alliance requires a Board of Directors (Alliance
    Principals), a Secretariat (e.g., STP), and a
    reporting authority (e.g., SMC/TD)
  • Some SMC Flag Officer support for the proposed
    Alliance

4
Responsive Space (RS)Missions
Responsive Space
Question What is needed to reduce the cycle time
(currently gt48 mos) and have a repeatable 12-18
month cycle time for Space demonstrations?
5
RD Responsive SpaceDiscovery Process
  • Key ST Organizations
  • Space ST Integrated Experiments (AFRL/VSE)
  • Space Structures Controls ST (AFRL/VSS)
  • Rocket Systems Launch Program (Det 12/RP)
  • DoD Space Test Program (Det 12/ST)
  • RD Space Missile Operations (Det 12/VO)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL/ISR)
  • NRL Naval Center for Space Technology (NRL/NCST)
  • USU Space Dynamics Lab (SDL)
  • Activities
  • Interviews
  • Meetings with Key Organizations
  • Workshop RRS Summit
  • Data Collection
  • Unique contribution
  • Facilities
  • Agreements
  • Contracts
  • Discussed w/ Likely S/C Build Contractors (e.g.,
    RSDO)
  • Sought Aerospace Input

6
Our Answer!
  • Is Based On
  • Expert opinion of some very experienced Space
    RDTE (incl. ST) professionals (recog. best)
  • Experiences and review of unique technical
    offerings from each key Space ST organization
  • Collaboration and cooperation of key
    organizations to deliver a repeatable (vice one
    off) process
  • If RRS problem is properly constrained (e.g., fit
    Minotaur)

RD Responsive Space is not easy, and has never
been done on a repeatable basis!
Note Was in glory days of the late 60s by RRS
Alliance principal NCST and the glory days of SDI
by AFRL (MSTI)
7
How We Attacked the Problem Discovery Tool
  • RRS Scenarios
  • Dedicated LV, Build S/C
  • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
  • Piggyback on Host S/C
  • Auxiliary kicked off LV
  • (including Space Shuttle)
  • ISS External Payload
  • (Only ISS Power)

Applied to
8
RRS Basic Concept
What we want to do..
Mission Level Activities
What one needs to have to allow it..
9
RRS Doable Scenarios
  • 1 Dedicated Launch Vehicle (Build S/C)
  • 2 Dedicated Launch Vehicle (S/C Brought)
  • 3 Piggyback on Host Spacecraft or LV
  • 4 Auxiliary satellite deployed from launch
    vehicle (includes shuttle deployables)
  • 5 ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power)

These scenarios helped identify needs, barriers,
dependencies, and get-aheads. They are a
starting point, not a destination.
10
How We Attacked the Problem Discovery Tool
  • RRS Scenarios
  • Dedicated LV, Build S/C
  • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
  • Piggyback on Host S/C
  • Auxiliary kicked off LV
  • (including Space Shuttle)
  • ISS External Payload
  • (Only ISS Power)

Applied to
We based solutions on what we know can be done
today, and on the team approach (for
repeatability depth)
11
What Did We Learn- Results Of Discovery Process!
  • Consensus A formal team, confederation of the
    willing, Alliance, is necessary to carry out
    repeatable RD Responsive Spaceflight credibly
    NOW!
  • No one organization can muster critical mass to
    accomplish the RRS goal repetitively TODAY! - A
    single org (e.g., STP) could do it in the future
    with the proper resource investment.
  • RD Responsive Space must be performed as a new
    process leaves existing processes (e.g., SERB)
    alone (non-responsive).
  • An Alliance collaboration offers a robust and
    responsive foundation from which to build a
    repeatable process synergy reduces schedule,
    (esp. non recurring) cost, and cycle time
  • Organizational commitment to participate must be
    followed by resource (manning funding)
    commitment necessary to meet timeline for
    responsive TBD in RRS Implementation
  • For each scenario there are barriers, needs,
    dependencies, and schedule realities that must be
    recognized and addressed

12
Scenario 1 Dedicated LV, Build S/CExample
  • Barriers
  • Review Process increases time and dollars
  • LV 18 Months unless pre-buy
  • Personnel Availability
  • Long lead time for S/C parts
  • Frequency allocation process
  • Technical Envelope
  • Minotaur LV (Pre Buy)
  • S/C Must Fit Minotaur
  • Standard S/C Design
  • Needs Dependencies
  • Freeze Mission Requirements by PDR
  • Concept design SRR in one month
  • Train Ops on the ground with S/C when available
  • Select LV by S/C SRR
  • Need quick response to Govt Reviews
  • Must have long lead items on-the-shelf
  • Standard interfaces defined 30-60 days to PDR
  • Schedule Realities
  • If an existing standard bus is available 30-60
    days to do PDR is doable
  • Technical complexity drives timeframe
  • On-orbit time drives timeframe
  • Use of approved COTS pre-positioning long
    lead items essential
  • Each organizations integration approach drives
    timeframe
  • Commissioning S/C will drive design timeframe
  • LV Minotaur in 18 months doable without dollars
    up front
  • Increased design margin improves speed of
    reviews reduces risk

13
RRS Alliance Member CapabilitiesCapabilities
Overlap Supports Rapid Availability Depth for
RRS Repeatability
One off, custom SV. In-house build with
contractor parts. Can meet 18 month schedule,
depending on sensor type. Some limited
capability. Shuttle Other
14
The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work?
RRS Alliance Board of Directors
RRS Customer
  • RRS Alliance
  • Secretariat
  • Admin
  • Cost Analysis
  • Mission Support

15
The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work?
RRS Alliance Board of Directors
RRS Customer
RRS Alliance Capabilities (Brokered on a case by
case basis by BoD)
  • Scenarios
  • Dedicated LV, Build S/C
  • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
  • Piggyback on Host S/C
  • Auxiliary on LV
  • (including Space Shuttle)
  • ISS External Payload
  • (Only ISS Power)
  • RRS Alliance
  • Secretariat
  • Admin
  • Cost Analysis
  • Mission Support

16
The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work?
RRS Alliance Board of Directors
RRS Customer
RRS Alliance Capabilities (Brokered on a case by
case basis by BoD)
  • Scenarios
  • Dedicated LV, Build S/C
  • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
  • Piggyback on Host S/C
  • Auxiliary on LV
  • (including Space Shuttle)
  • ISS External Payload
  • (Only ISS Power)
  • RRS Alliance
  • Secretariat
  • Admin
  • Cost Analysis
  • Mission Support

RRS Mission
  • Project
  • Team
  • Barriers

RRS Investment Vision
Technical Solution
  • Future Needs
  • Program
  • Technology
  • Processes

Management Approach
17
Why An Alliance?Vice Single Organization
  • The synergy of the sum of our best RD Space
    professionals (team) is greater than any one org
    (the parts)
  • Lowers cost, defines standards, utilizes existing
    facilities, builds appropriate overlap for
    greater repeatability, reduces cycle time
  • Increases technical envelope An increased
    number of rapid response solutions to todays
    need can be exercised
  • Shares investment in rapid response technologies
    (e.g., TacSat series, /VSS GSFCs MR2) is
    possible once a commitment from Alliance members
    is formally established
  • A properly managed Alliance can keep shared
    commitments visible and accountable, collaborate
    vice compete
  • Broader experience with new tools (modeling
    simulation) is enhanced with larger organization
    participation (F1 model)

18
Conclusion The Way Ahead
  • RD Responsive Space Alliance Needs Sponsorship,
    Resource Commitments to Develop Successful
    Implementation Plan
  • Sponsor should appoint a Secretariat (e.g., STP)
    to facilitate the Alliance BoD (Principals)
    perform basic Alliance administration
  • Secretariat will need to codify commitments,
    agreements, Implementation Plan, and execution
    process - ASAP
  • Sponsor or Secretariat should be commissioned to
    identify RD Responsive Space barriers and their
    mitigation or work around
  • RRS Alliance Willing to Demonstrate Credibility
    by Doing Real Pilot Mission of /TDs choice. We
    now know it is Roadrunner!
  • Alliance will need continued SMC corporate
    support of this strategy including help removing
    red tape barriers

RD Responsive Space can be done TODAY!
19
Roadrunner (TacSat-2) July 05? Spaceflight
(STP-RSLP)
Primary Experiments
  • A panchromatic and three-color imaging system to
    provide operational NIRS-5 data. (AFRL/VSE)
  • A 200W Hall thruster electric propulsion systems
    the AFRL/PRS Micro-satellite Propulsion
    Integration (MPI) experiment ranked 19 on the
    03 DoD SERB list.
  • The software system to provide for autonomous and
    rapid checkout of the satellites/payloads in
    orbit.
  • In the current baseline data (imagery) would be
    requested through the SIPRNET. These multiple
    tasking requests would be tasked at the Virtual
    Mission Operations Center (VMOC).
  • Target Indication Experiment (TIE). TIE is
    ranked 15 on the 03 DoD SERB list. (NRL/NCST)
  • Miniaturized Vibration Isolation System (MVIS).
    MVIS is ranked 6 on 03 DoD SERB list.
    (AFRL/VSS)
  • AFRL/VSB Atmospheric Density System (ADS). ADS
    is ranked 14 on the 03 DoD SERB list.
  • ShockRing is ranked 21 on the 03 DoD SERB list.
    (AFRL/VSS)

Other Possible SERB Experiments
20
We Give Free Estimates!(including other Govt
customers like JPL)
21
Back Up Charts
22
Other RRS Scenarios
  • Technical Envelope, Schedule, Needs, Barriers
  • Quad Charts

23
Scenario 2 Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
  • Technical Envelope
  • Minotaur LV (Pre Buy)
  • S/C Must Fit Minotaur
  • Standard S/C Design
  • Barriers
  • S/C provider must recognize booster and OPS
    Center Limitations
  • Frequency allocation process
  • Needs Dependencies
  • Nail down classification issues by end of mission
    design (SCG if needed)
  • S/C structural model to do hard mount coupled
    loads (takes 60-90 days) to start mission design
  • ICD Issues (to LV, to GSE) must be really fleshed
    out up front
  • S/c frequencies, data rates, data stream must be
    fully explained during mission design phase
  • FCC authorization must be obtained by S/C
  • Lots of S/C technical data will be required by
    Ops team
  • Mission assurance planning must be done up front
    (roles and responsibilities laid out)
  • Operations characterization completed by PDR
  • Ops handbook draft, support for
    training/simulations
  • Need access to S/C technical team to support
    operations development and on-orbit efforts
  • Full understanding of mission assurance
    responsibilities
  • Need 6-9 months to prepare for operations if all
    detail known
  • Schedule Realities
  • Need all S/C characterized by 2 months prior to
    S/C thermal vacuum testing
  • If S/C bringer is also doing operations, only
    need to provide launch
  • Need Mission Assessment at start (about 1
    month)
  • Minimum ops development time 6-9 months (if same
    as other types of s/c, if all data is available

24
Scenario 3 Piggyback on Host S/C
  • Technical Envelope
  • Dependent upon S/C
  • Barriers
  • Current prime (sponsor) culture is against
    doing piggybacks at all. Nothing but the
    primary mission
  • Risk adverse primes (sponsors) (No new
    technology, no additional things)
  • Frequency allocation process
  • Needs Dependencies
  • Detailed ICD for fitting on the Prime (by Prime
    PDR, preconfigured interfaces)
  • Prime interfaces must be Nailed at start
  • Must know before hand about capacity on primes
  • Must have realistic costing for integration
  • Schedule Realities
  • Completely dependent on prime s/c schedule
  • Preconfigured interfaces foster increased
    potential to meet timeline

25
Scenario 4 Auxiliary kicked off LV (incl.
Space Shuttle)
  • Technical Envelope
  • ESPA Class Spacecraft
  • Standard S/C Design
  • Barriers
  • EELV not doing regular ESPA launches
  • RD community ability to use every opportunity
    (Lack of )
  • For Shuttle, NASA Integration and Safety Process
  • Frequency allocation process
  • Needs Dependencies
  • Details of unused capacity (by LV/mission)
  • ICD for adapter (mechanical and electrical)
  • Schedule driven by Prime payload
  • EELV having contract mechanism to accept
    secondaries (and trade space)
  • ISS core completed to free up Shuttle capacity
  • Schedule Realities
  • Very much like Option 1
  • Schedule defined and controlled by Prime Payload

26
Scenario 5 ISS External Payload (Only ISS
Power)
  • Barriers
  • NASA Integration Safety Process takes time
    Money
  • NASA isnt a credible Partner because of past
    history with DOD
  • NASA vs. DoD culture clash
  • Frequency allocation process
  • Technical Envelope
  • Only taking ISS Power
  • Limited crew involvement, low impact on ISS
  • Safe without services
  • Needs Dependencies
  • ISS Constraints limit usability
  • If you fit the ISS Paradigm then it is
    responsive, capability is evolving
  • Schedule Realities
  • 24 months (can be accelerated)

27
RRS Alliance Implementation
  • Notional until Implementation Plan Is Fleshed Out

28
RRS Alliance Implementation TBD Now That
Commissioned
Charter Provide an .. Structure Function of
the Board of Directors Requirements for Board
Membership Function of Secretariat
Commissioning Authority
29
RRS Alliance Secretariat
Functional Position Full Time Equivalents Direct
or 1.0 Secretary 1.0 Mission
Designer 1.0 FM 0.2 PK 0.2 Secret
ariat Total 3.4
30
Notional Project Flow
31
Notional RRS Project Team
Functional Position Yr 1 Yr 2
Comments Mission Mgr 1.0 1.0 Team
Leads 1.0 1.0 Mission Design 1.0 0.0 S/C
Development 2.5 2.5 S/C contractor team LV
Integration 0.2 0.7 LV team, e.g.
RSLP Flight Planning 5.0 3.0 GS
Development 5.0 2.5 Flight Ops 1.0
5.0 FM 0.2 0.2 PK 1.0 0.5 "SPO"
Total 17.9 16.4
32
RRS Alliance Capabilities
  • Top Level Summary by Subject Area

33
Alliance Support Infrastructure (e.g.,
Mechanisms, Contracts, etc)
  • AFRL/VSE
  • Aerospace Engineering (IT) Facility
  • AFRL/VSS
  • SBIRs w AeroAstro, SpaceDev, CSA, etc
  • LANL/ISR
  • Contract with SSTL (specifically for CFESat)
    would new procurement for a 2nd satellite.
    Various electrical, mechanical machining
    vehicles, which can be used
  • NRL/NCST
  • Contracts w Orbital, SpaceX, SpectrumAstro, etc
  • RDSMO
  • Contracts w Northrop-Grumman Lockheed-Martin,
    Black (SCI, SAR/SAP) White (unclas) experiment
    process capability. SCF with access to AFSCN
  • RSLP
  • IDIQ w Orbital for Minotaurs, Peacekeepers
  • STP
  • No current RRS funding or contracting mechanisms
    with exception of SMDC (initially would serve as
    real estate broker for the Alliance when
    commissioned)
  • SDL
  • UARC funding mechanisms w NRL MDA, contracts
    w SmallSats community

34
Current Mission Planning Capabilities
  • STP has performed extensive mission planning for
    SERB experiments. STP receives specifications
    for all payloads and then bundles them to
    procure a new SV or finds individual piggyback
    opportunities for each by matching requirements
    of payload to established missions. STP has
    mission planning processes in place in-house to
    quickly and efficiently match payloads with
    access to space.
  • NRL performs mission planning for their in-house
    SV builds.
  • AFRL/VS performs mission planning for their
    in-house SV builds. AFRL/VS Distributed
    Architecture Simulation Lab (DASL) hosts
    Satellite Tool Kit. Several multi-year contract
    vehicles are available to perform mission mod and
    sim (MRC, PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they
    have a lot of ceiling to MPIR money. Tasking
    must be within scope of contract. Approx 30 days
    to get them on-contract.
  • LANL has performed mission planning for our
    in-house SV builds
  • SDL can provide up-front SV design. SDL services
    can be accessed using the sole-source UARC
    contract. (University Affiliated Research Center)
    already in place. Any DoD organization can
    funnel money through it as long as it has
    something to do with space sensors, expect a
    1-month turnaround. However, in an emergency we
    can typically carry the program for a month or
    two on internal funding. In those cases we have
    started work on contracts within the same week.

35
Current S/C Capabilities- Facilities
  • AFRL/VS Aerospace Engineering Facility (AEF)
    hosts environmental chambers, baking and curing
    chambers, T-Vac chambers, EMI screen room, shaker
    tables, clean rooms, solar simulation lamp, spin
    table, and mass properties table. JT contract
    handles most of the SV IT tasks.
  • SDL hosts Thermal Optical Research chamber, T-Vac
    chambers, RF-shielded anechoic chamber, shaker
    table, clean rooms, machine shop, and 5 SCIFS.
    Scheduling is rarely a problem, and all could be
    made available almost on-demand.
  • NRL hosts anechoic chambers, integration
    facilities, clean rooms, T-Vac chambers,
    vibration shakers, acoustic chamber, pyro shock
    and static load test capabilities, ground-based
    instrument calibration facilities, satellite
    laser ranging facility, and an on-orbit
    calibration facility.
  • LANL hosts clean rooms T-vac chambers screen
    room various calibration facilities photon,
    x-ray, neutron, and gamma-ray sources laser
    linear accelerator classified and unclassified
    computing facilities classified and unclassified
    shock facilities RF and optics labs satellite
    integration facility, and electron cyclotron
    resonance ion beam facility. LANL also has 2
    SCIFs for black projects.

36
Current S/C Capabilities- Services
  • AFRL/VS Distributed Architecture Simulation Lab
    (DASL) has modeling and simulation capabilities
    for SV subsystems, payload modeling,
    hardware-in-the-loop evaluations, and development
    of flight software. Several multi-year contract
    vehicles are available to perform mod and sim
    (MRC, PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they have
    a lot of ceiling to MPIR money. Tasking must be
    within scope of contract. Approx 30 days to get
    them on-contract.
  • SDL builds custom SVs, so does not have a
    standard structure to offer, but can perform the
    following Structure, electronics, and thermal
    blanket design fabrication thermal reflectors
    or paint application cable buildup sensor
    re-design some sensor design build sensor and
    spacecraft integration sensor testing
    spacecraft testing (EMI/EMC, Thermal vac, shake
    vibe) SV-LV integration assistance. SDL
    services can be accessed using the sole-source
    UARC contract. (University Affiliated Research
    Center) already in place. Any DoD organization
    can use it as long as it has something to do with
    space sensors. Approx 30 days to get them
    on-contract.
  • NRL builds custom SVs, so does not have a
    standard structure to offer, but has task order
    contracts with Orbital Sciences and Honeywell in
    place for parts and services that can be used if
    in scope. Can get them on-contract in a day, if
    necessary.

37
Current S/C Capabilities- S/C Builds
  • AFRL/VSE has MightySat II.1 bus to offer. It has
    flown. Long-lead items are in storage, and bus
    can be available in less than 1 year. MightySat
    specs 68.6cm x 88.9 cm x 88.9 cm, 125 Kg
    (includes 37 kg payload), orbit avg. power
    consumption 150 W (includes 60 W for payload).
  • SDL and NRL can build custom SVs in-house, and
    provide them in under a year if the sensor is
    simple. Schedule is highly dependent on sensor
    selected.

38
Future S/C Capabilitiesw Proper Resourcing
  • AFRL/VSE working on a more capable (more payload
    for the SV mass) model of MightySat called
    MicroSat that is not yet available.
  • NRL/NCST is working with the Office of Force
    Transformations Operationally Responsive Space
    Experiment Initiative to provide a rapid,
    tailored, and operationally relevant experimental
    space capability to tactical forces. This
    includes a standard micro-satellite bus,
    interfaces, and a modular payload capability.
  • Within 2 months, SDL will be prepared to do a
    full EMI/EMC test

39
Current LV Capabilities
  • RSLP is only provider in Alliance for launch
    vehicles, launch analysis, integration
    facilities. No current process for manifest of
    secondaries exists.
  • Current OSP-2 contract with Orbital Sciences
    provides Minotaur and Peacekeeper in negotiated
    configuration only (task order contract).
    Minotaur available 18 mos from money received to
    launch
  • OSP-2 Peacekeeper
  • Capability 1030 Kg to 400nm, 99 inclination
  • Approx payload envelope
  • OSP Minotaur
  • Capability 335 Kg to 400nm, 99 inclination
  • Approx payload envelope

19
35
31
53
60
40
48
122
48
81
40
Launch Vehicle Payload Volume Comparison
Minotaur
PK SLV
PK SLV (14.3 m3 507 ft3)
Minotaur (1.95 m3 69 ft3)
41
Future LV Capabilities
  • RSLP is only LV provider in Alliance
  • RSLP is putting together own pitch for SMC chain
    to offer quicker launches, if 4M is invested up
    front. RSLP will take money and develop LV up to
    certain point and freeze - could shorten launch
    schedule to as short as 6-months.
  • Launch opportunities for secondaries
    multi-payload adaptor and large payload fairing
    for Minotaur are qualified and ready, but have
    not flown (will fly in 05). 2 multi-payload
    adaptors and a large payload fairing for
    Peacekeeper in work.
  • Hope to have new Spaceports contract up in 2
    years to provide access to VAFB, CCAS, WFF, and
    Kodiak

42
Current Operations Capabilities
  • RDSMO has a ground system facility permitting
    dynamic reconfiguration based on customer
    requirements
  • In-house development or Customer delivered
    equipment
  • Operations staff (cost shared with other programs
    to the extent possible)
  • High and low level redundancy for aggregate
    99.65 internal availability and 97 using the
    AFSCN
  • NRL has a permanent control center (Blossom
    Point) with mobile antennas and fixed antennas
    inside and outside CONUS.
  • On-orbit payload data processing performed by
    SAIC and MRC contractors for AFRL/VSE.
  • SDL has payload data reduction and analysis
    capability.
  • LANL has two autonomous ground stations, LANL and
    University of Alaska, Fairbanks for highly
    inclined orbits. LANL also has the DPAC or the
    highly sophisticated data processing center that
    has been used by MTI that could be adapted.

43
Miscellaneous RRS Notes
  • Benefits of an Alliance vice Sole Source
  • Increase sponsor commitment
  • Enhance Personnel Retention and growth
  • Influence RD Mission Design Requirements
  • One-stop shop for RD Responsive Space
  • Streamline Interfaces
  • Identify Holes in our RD Responsive Space
    Options
  • Alliance BOD must be a formal organization
    authorized and validated
  • Requirement for Board Member
  • Technically knowledgeable on their organizations
    offering and able to get authority to commit
  • Able to make decisions about the acceptance of a
    project to the RD Responsive Space
  • Must have TRUST
  • Project/Program/Mission Manger
  • Must be very experienced and able to handle
    interfaces between organizations.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com