NASA NTRS2013
Aerospace problems are highly multidisciplinary. Four or more major disciplines are involved in analyzing any particular vehicle. Moreover, the choice of implementation technology of various subsystems can lead to a change of leading domain or reformation of the driving equations. An excellent example is the change of expertise required to consider aircraft built from composite or metallic structures, or those propelled by chemical or electrical thrusters. Another example is in the major reconfiguration of handling and stability equations with different control surface configuration (e.g., canards, t-tail v four-post tail). Combinatorial problems are also commonplace anytime that a major system is to be designed. If there are only 5 attributes of a design to consider with 4 different options, this is already 1024 options. Adding just 5 more dimensions to the study explodes the space to over one million. Even generous assumptions like the idea that only 10% of the combinations are physically feasible can only contain the problem for so long. To make matters worse, the simple number of combinations is only the beginning. Combining the issue of trade space size with the need to reformulate the design problem for many of the possibilities makes life exponentially more difficult. Advances in software modeling approaches have led to the development of model-driven architecture. This approach uses the transformation of models into inferred models (e.g. inferred execution traces from state machines) or the skeletons for code generation. When the emphasis on transformation is applied to aerospace, it becomes possible to exploit redundancy in the information specified in multiple domain models into a unified system model. F1urther, it becomes possible to overcome the combinatorial nature of specifying integrated system behavior by manually combining the equations governing a given component technology. Transformations from a system specification combined with a system-analysis mapping specification enable one-click combination of domain analyses. This is a flexibility that has been missing from many engineering codes, which often entangle design specification and physical examination much more than is required to conduct the analysis. This capability has been investigated and cultivated within the DARPA F6 program by a team of JPL and Phoenix Integration engineers building the Adapatable Systems Design and Analysis (ASDA) framework. By embracing system modeling with SysML and the Query-View-Transformation (QVT) language, the ASDA team has been able to build a flexible, easily reconfigurable framework for building up and solving large tradespaces. Examples of application and lessons learned in building the framework will be described in this paper. In addition, the motivation will be laid for various tool vendors to develop open model description standards while being able to maintain competitive advantage through proprietary algorithms and approaches. These standards will also be compared to the underpinnings of model-driven architecture and the OMG standards of the Meta-Object Facility (MOF), SysML, and QVT.