Introduction

Embarking on a career shift is akin to venturing into uncharted space, where each step shapes the trajectory of not only an individual but perhaps an organization, or an entire field. In the dynamic world of space systems development, Mission Assurance and the Mission Assurance Manager stand as a sentinel, ensuring the success and resilience of space missions. Yet there is a dearth of widespread professional understanding and appreciation of the role and its importance to success in aerospace missions. Furthermore, as space becomes more and more “commonplace”, programmatic funding for this area of expertise is diminishing rather than trending in proportion to overall space systems investment. As I reflect on my journey as a Mission Assurance Manager, the need to share knowledge about this discipline, and how to perform well at it, becomes increasingly evident. This article is not just a recounting of my experiences; I want it to be a call to action.

My Mission Assurance Odyssey

My foray into the world of Mission Assurance unfolded in 2018 when I joined a mid-sized aerospace company, with a long history of space hardware and systems development. Proud to contribute to a legacy spanning over six decades, the air buzzed with excitement, but challenges loomed large. Relocating my family to a new state, stepping into a new professional arena, and grappling with the intricacies of space system Mission Assurance Management – it was a multifaceted leap. Applying under a generic job requisition, I was open to the prospect of exploring new horizons.

The epiphany struck during an unexpected segment of the interview. Replacing a previously scheduled interviewer, the then Director of Mission Assurance sat down with me to talk about the role of Mission Assurance Manager. Initially, the position seemed enigmatic. Was it akin to Quality Assurance? The director’s patient elucidation painted a picture of cost and schedule management, customer relations, project team leadership, and obscure engineering disciplines such as Radiation Effects and Reliability Engineering. He described the role as part of a “three-legged stool”, consisting of the program manager, chief engineer, and mission assurance manager, where each had their individual functions and responsibilities, and each were critical to mission success. Emphasizing the need for personal tenacity and a diverse engineering background, the interviewer characterized the role as a sort of deputy program manager, a critical position in the intricate dance of engineering design, company profitability, and mission success. This was the nexus of project management, customer relationships, and technical acumen that I didn’t know I was seeking.

The Silent Guardians

Mission Assurance, often misunderstood as a bureaucratic hurdle, is the silent architect of successful aerospace endeavors. Beyond the compliance nuances of assurance and specialty engineering requirements flow down and verification, it is a risk management function that stands as a sentinel to ensure the integrity of an engineering design, the alignment of the design with customer goals (the mission) and safeguarding the performance and reputation of the company. This revelation became the bedrock of my passion for the role.

The role of a Mission Assurance Manager wasn’t merely about enforcing compliance or being the safety police; it was about maintaining a delicate balance between engineering, program management, and mission success. It involved navigating the sometimes-competing objectives of schedule control, technical performance, product quality, and the imperative of company profitability. This delicate dance required a unique set of skills and personal attributes— a fusion of engineering judgment, strategic foresight, risk management, the drive to solve problems, and the resolve to weather storms of uncertainty.

Navigating Perceptions

Yet, perceptions surrounding Mission Assurance were far from rosy. Welcomes to my new company were tinged with surprise and skepticism. “The Quality Police,” they affectionately teased. It seemed that not only was learning the role going to be an uphill climb, but it appeared the job itself was poorly understood and perhaps even looked down on. A candid exchange with a program manager laid bare the resilience needed for success.

“Nathan, the job you’ve taken on is very difficult, fraught with conflict and uncertainty, and often taking the heat for things that go wrong that you had little to no control over.  You will always be underfunded, pressed for decisions on things you don’t understand, leaned on to let up on compliance, and continuously surprised by the new ways people can do something stupid.  The best Mission Assurance Managers are ones who have spent their entire careers in Aerospace and are specialists in one or more of the core Mission Assurance disciplines. And the worst … well, mostly they just tend to be roadblocks.”

“But what about being a Deputy PM, three-legged stool, critical to mission success, and all that?”, I exclaimed.

He responded, “Well, it can be like that, if you’re among the best of them, but it takes a lot of work and it isn’t written down anywhere or just given to you as part of the job title.  You have to earn it, and keep earning it, and earn it again every time you change programs.”

I realized that the challenge I had embraced was more formidable than I initially thought. These misperceptions and skepticism of Mission Assurance and its contributions to mission success threatened to overshadow the nuanced and strategic role it played. This skepticism wasn’t merely a professional challenge; it was an existential one for the discipline.

The Evolution of Mission Assurance

Unraveling the layers of the evolution of Mission Assurance as a discipline, and Mission Assurance Management as a vocation is long and complex, nor is there a universally agreed-upon definition of what Mission Assurance includes or even is. In the space industry, Mission Assurance can be summarized as the process of ensuring that a space mission is executed safely, efficiently, and effectively, to achieve the mission objectives.

The term “Mission Assurance” started to be used more frequently in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in connection with the Apollo program, and the term became more formalized and defined during the 1980s, particularly as a result of findings from the investigation into the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. The early 1980s was a period when the government aggressively incentivized and even pressured private industry and organizations like NASA to dramatically reduce the cost of space systems development, launch, and operations. Driven by legislation such as President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act, organizations knowingly reduced systems, quality, and reliability engineering activities as a means to cut costs and development timelines.

However, this heavily streamlined development and operations model was not embraced by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) whose missions included the longest terms and most challenging of space environments (e.g., Voyager, Galileo, MARD), missions where reliability, redundancy, and highest quality workmanship were paramount to mission success. JPL created a “Mission Assurance Program”, supplying reliability, quality, and safety guidelines and practices for ensuring the success of JPL’s missions, including meticulous requirements flow down and verification to suppliers.

The 1986 Challenger disaster functioned as a catalyst, propelling Mission Assurance into the forefront as a critical discipline in space systems development. Results from the Rogers Commission cited findings such as overreliance on past successes to qualify a design, lack of communication and transparency between mission stakeholders, poor risk management processes, inferior quality and safety practices, and organizational pressures to meet cost and schedule targets, as direct contributors to the accident. All these deficiencies were directly addressed by the JPL mission assurance model, which emphasized the independence of mission assurance from the program itself as a means to promote quality and safety as key mission success enablers. The NASA centers soon began to emulate mission assurance programs based on JPL’s, and industry partners followed soon thereafter.

“Mission Assurance” became an independent program within a program, led by an experienced manager and engineer to guide subject matter experts, enforce adherence to requirements, and serve on the risk control board for the mission. Mission Assurance and the Mission Assurance Manager became a strategic enabler, influencing programmatic practices, engineering technical approaches, and the management of risks crucial to mission success. Mission Assurance Managers were never intended to be mere gatekeepers; they were engineering leaders and risk managers, balancing the demands of the mission against the fiscal realities and pressures of publicly funded space missions.

Championing the Role

The evolution of Mission Assurance wasn’t a passive process. It required champions who could articulate and execute its significance. People who understand that the role is not just about ticking boxes; it’s about orchestrating an integrated approach that influences technical design, positively affects performance and longevity, ensures the capture and dissemination of lessons learned, and preserves the capability of the company and program to meet both internal and external stakeholder goals.

As space missions grew in complexity, Mission Assurance became a multidisciplinary field encompassing Quality Engineering, Reliability Engineering, EEE Parts, Systems Safety, Radiation Effects, Configuration Control, and more. Expanding beyond traditional boundaries, the role of the Mission Assurance Manager wasn’t just about ensuring the quality and reliability of components; it was about orchestrating an integrated approach that influenced technical design, positively affected performance and longevity, ensured the capture and dissemination of lessons learned, and preserved the capability of the company and program to meet both internal and external stakeholder goals.

The independence of the Mission Assurance Manager and the Mission Assurance program became instrumental in program execution and mission success. The Mission Assurance Manager evolved into a vital figure, not merely enforcing compliance but acting as the “voice of the customer” and the “conscience of the program”, weighing and balancing the risks of requiring too much or allowing too little application of engineering disciplines to ensure the integrity of the design.

The Urgency Amidst Complexity

Amidst the current boom in space system development, the urgency to share knowledge intensifies. The common perception that space operations have become routine conceals the ever-growing complexities and risks. It’s not just about managing quality and reliability; new threats like cyber-attacks, supply chain vulnerabilities, and intricate software dependencies require a heightened focus on risk management. And the seasoned Mission Assurance professionals, the architects of this discipline, are transitioning away from the workforce. And the bottom-line reality that needs to be understood and dealt with is that there are not enough trained and experienced professionals to take their place. The next generation requires an accelerated immersion in Mission Assurance to ensure its seamless continuity.

The space industry is at a crossroads where the need for meticulous risk management and the diverse ability that the Mission Assurance Manager provides, is paramount. Yet, paradoxically, as budgets soar and missions become more complex, Mission Assurance budgets are on a downward trend, and the availability of the very disciplines (in terms of training and experience) crucial to mission success is facing challenges at a time when its importance has never been more pronounced. The question that echoes is clear — how do we ensure the continuity of Mission Assurance excellence? There is an urgent need for knowledge transfer to ensure the continuity of Mission Assurance excellence.

An Imperative to Share Knowledge

As we face this urgent challenge, the call to share knowledge becomes more than a professional duty; it is a moral imperative. The experiences, insights, and lessons learned must be passed on to the next generation. It’s about shaping not just the technical acumen of Mission Assurance Managers but instilling a mindset that embraces challenges as opportunities.

Leveraging my own experiences and learning path as a Mission Assurance Manager, the purpose of this series of articles is three-fold:

1. Highlight the need and urgency of training and mentoring for the next generation of mission assurance management professionals.
2. Share information about Mission Assurance and Mission Assurance Management: history, purpose, methods, and current challenges.
3. Serve as a platform for Mission Assurance professionals, and hopefully, those who are interested in joining the field, to learn, share ideas, and debate the improvements and transformations necessary to propel Mission Assurance into the future.

The legacy of Mission Assurance lies not just in the successful missions it safeguards but in the knowledge it imparts. It’s a collective responsibility — seasoned Mission Assurance Managers, aerospace enthusiasts, and decision-makers shaping the industry’s future must unite in knowledge transfer and advocacy for the vital role that Mission Assurance and the Mission Assurance Manager play.