With the recent launch of the James Web Space Telescope (JWST), there are some very interesting and complex commissioning activities taking place in space.  JWST is the replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope and will provide the astronomy community with an even deeper look into our universe.

JWST Launch

The launch of JWST is a significant milestone for the space community since this project has been in development for decades. I remember seeing components of JWST being tested 20 years ago.

We are familiar with ground-based commissioning, but did you know that satellites also require commissioning? The commissioning phase of space systems takes place after launch and orbit insertion, to verify the systems in their intended space environment, determine all systems have survived the harsh launch conditions, deploy all components, and fine-tune instruments as the spacecraft gets ready for the operational portion of the mission. Learn more about the commissioning phase of the James Webb Space Telescope here and here. Because there has been so much effort and expense for this mission, the commissioning of JWST is referred to as the 30 days of terror.

Commissioning in space is the ultimate challenge, and there is a significant amount of upfront testing done on the ground to ensure that in-orbit commissioning goes smoothly. There are many lessons that can be learned from the aerospace industry to make our ground-based projects go just as smoothly, so commissioning does not have to be referred to as the “terror” phase of the project. If these lessons are not followed, your commissioning can certainly turn into a terrifying experience. Let’s review these lessons.

There is No Reset Switch

Commissioning in space must work. There is no ability to walk over to the equipment rack and press the reset button to resolve issues. This means that the design is very important. Spacecraft designs must include redundancy and the designs must work. I see this too often during our major capital infrastructure projects here on Earth, that there is too much reliance on the reset switch. Designs are put on paper, but implementing the design and actually making it work is deferred to later, all because everyone knows there is a reset switch. If it doesn’t work, it can be fixed on the ground, which means that issues are deferred to later during commissioning.

This is not the case during spacecraft commissioning. The designs must work, and issues cannot be left to be discovered during in-orbit commissioning. For this reason, the aerospace industry de-risks the project as early as possible. An issue discovered after launch could mean mission failure. The same approach needs to be taken for our Earth-based projects. While an issue can be fixed later in the project, it usually results in significant costs and delays to do so.

The Stakes are Higher, So Why Take the Risk

For both ground-based commissioning and in-orbit commissioning, there is a finite scope, schedule, and budget for projects. JWST is an exception with such a huge budget, but budgets for ground-based projects can far exceed the budgets for space projects. This is usually due to the significant construction phase of projects for large earthworks and large equipment supplies. There is a lot of technical risk for a spacecraft project, and a lot of financial risk for a ground-based project.  Large earth-moving projects can easily have budgets in the multi-billions of dollars. Some of the satellite projects I have worked on had budgets in the tens-of-millions of dollars.

So the financial stakes are MUCH higher for our ground-based projects, but for some reason, project-risks are not managed the same between space projects and projects on Earth. Spacecraft projects definitely mitigate risk as much as possible so that in-orbit commissioning goes smoothly. But the same approach is not taken with our large infrastructure projects. Designs can be incomplete or construction can have poor quality, which means issues are deferred to commissioning. And this deferral of risk costs projects significantly as delays are encountered during commissioning. This doesn’t have to be the case. If the same approach that is taken in the aerospace industry is taken during major capital projects, significant cost overruns and schedule delays can be avoided. When the financial stakes are so much higher on ground-based infrastructure projects, why take the risk? In the end, the money drives all decisions on both space and ground projects. And it does not make sense to risk huge sums of money on ground-based projects just because there is a reset switch that can be relied on.

Everything Done Before Commissioning Determines the Success of Commissioning

Commissioning is a very fast-paced and dynamic phase of the project.  All the planning and testing that is done before commissioning will determine the success of the commissioning phase of your project. This is strongly evidenced in the aerospace industry. Imagine if a satellite was not tested before launch and only tested in-orbit – there would be a very small chance that the systems would work properly. That’s why planning and pre-commissioning are so important, to identify issues early in the project and address them before they become much larger issues. In the case of commissioning in space, issues can mean mission failure.

I have seen some projects try to skip factory acceptance testing and pre-commissioning altogether, thinking it will save time on the project. This is never the case. All the issues that would have been discovered during these earlier phases of the project are only discovered during commissioning, causing delays and cost overruns. There is too much reliance on the reset switch. Designs can be completed and equipment installed, but making everything work together will be the commissioning team’s responsibility after design and construction groups have left the project. This defers all the project risk to later in the project. This is never the approach for space commissioning, the intention is that everything must work prior to commissioning.

So why do projects take this approach on the ground?

Advance testing during factory acceptance testing and pre-commissioning are equally as critical (if not more critical) than the commissioning phase of the project. Advance testing sets the rest of the project up for success. In the case of spacecraft, it will determine if systems will even work in space. Proper factory acceptance testing and pre-commissioning de-risk the project and allow commissioning to go smoothly, saving the project time and money.

If this advanced approach is not taken, like is done in the aerospace industry, all the commissioning team can do at the end of the project is point out issues rather than proactively provide solutions earlier in the project.

Commissioning Does Not Have to be Terrifying

Commissioning is only terrifying when you have not properly planned and prepared in advance to ensure commissioning goes smoothly. This requires that groups that precede commissioning (design and construction groups) are setting commissioning up for the best chance of success. The biggest challenge on projects can often be communication. If design, construction, and commissioning groups are not proactively working together to discuss issues and implement solutions, commissioning will be terrifying – not for the design and construction groups, since they will have left the project, but for the poor commissioning team left holding the bag of issues at the end of the project.

For this reason, all people working on projects need to understand the commissioning process. It is no longer appropriate for design groups to only focus on their design role, they need to understand how their design efforts impact later phases of the project, and ensure they are working towards the end-goal of the project. Nobody intentionally creates designs that are to the detriment of the project, but without understanding how decisions during earlier phases of the project impact later phases, this can happen since the impacts to commissioning are not understood.

Structured Commissioning Processes are Essential

While methods to troubleshoot on-orbit electronics can be somewhat limited, the process to commission space-based and ground-based systems is very similar. With the level of automation that exists in today’s projects, all commissioning is remote. When commissioning industrial plant processes, this is typically done through the PLC-based automation system.   When commissioning in space, a similar HMI system exists. Both are very similar processes, monitoring and controlling the systems on a screen. The main difference is that if an issue is encountered during space commissioning, you can’t send someone to the field to investigate locally – the only way to troubleshoot is through the HMI screen. This means that you cannot be reliant on the equipment reset switch – the systems must work in space. And this same approach needs to be taken for commissioning ground-based systems. Relying on the reset switch is the lazy-approach.

A structured commissioning approach ensures that the necessary stages of planning and testing are done in advance so that you do not become reliant on the reset switch. Taking the same approach to planning and risk mitigation ensures that ground-based projects are not deferring risk to later in the project. Keeping the same mindset that commissioning must work, regardless if the project is space-based or ground-based, ensures that issues are not deferred to later in the project.

The same structured commissioning approach must be followed, regardless of the type (or location) of commissioning. When a structured commissioning process is followed, the end of the project will go much smoother. Commissioning starts at the very beginning of the project, during the conceptual phase, to ensure the right decisions are made to set commissioning up for success.

Commissioning in Space

The launch of JWST is an exciting event, and we wish the team lots of success. With the experience I have had commissioning spacecraft systems, I will be watching closely to learn more from the aerospace industry and apply these lessons to our ground-based projects. I encourage you to do the same as well so that we can deliver our projects on-time and on-budget.