Refinement of the Payload-Focused Mission Assurance Process in the Design Phase and Preparation of an Expert Consultation on the Revised Process for Small Satellite Missions in the Context of New Space

This paper aims to evaluate and refine the PDR and CDR within a new mission and product assurance process. The primary goals are to assess how these processes are received, identify areas for improvement, and develop validation methods to ensure their effectiveness across various team sizes and expertise levels. The paper employs a design research methodology, specifically an explanatory sequential design, to thoroughly explore the subject. Quantitative data was collected through an online survey conducted via survey.unibw.de, which provided a foundation for comprehensive data analysis. This was complemented by the preparation of expert interviews, serving as a qualitative method to gather in-depth insights from experienced professionals. The paper focuses on several review categories that play a crucial role in the mission and product assurance process: Risk Identification, Schedule, Meeting Process, Data Management, RID, and the Rating System. These categories help structure the evaluation and identify specific strengths and weaknesses in the process. Additionally the review categories are rated by evaluation parameters such as Workload, Implementability for Small Teams, Review Duration, Flexibility, needed Space Experience, and Embedding into the Design Phase to ensure that the objectives of the new process are achieved. Results of the performed survey indicate that the new PDR and CDR processes were generally well-received, with improvements noted over traditional processes. However, areas such as Risk Identification, Schedule, and Meeting Process were identified as needing further enhancement. Additionally, Workload and Implementability for Small Teams were noted as key challenges, that need to be addressed. The paper proposes iterative improvements, focusing on refining evaluation parameters and review categories. These enhancements aim to effectively address the identified challenges and improve the overall process. Future interviews will delve deeper into the identified problem areas and validate the proposed improvements. While the revised mission and product assurance process show promise, ongoing refinements are necessary to optimize their applicability for diverse teams. This paper contributes valuable insights into designing effective review processes for mission and product assurance, emphasizing the importance of participant feedback and iterative development.