NASA HEADQUARTERS

SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE

JOINT AGENCY SATELLITE DIVISION

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

April 10, 2023
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

1

Table of Contents
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 2

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all who contributed to outlining the findings discussed in this report. Their time and expertise

made this report possible, which will help in enabling the success of future missions. 

• Andre Dress, JPSS Flight Project Manager, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)

• John Satrom, JPSS Launch Integration Manager, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)

• Joe Del Corso, LOFTID Project Manager, Langley Research Center (LaRC)

• John DiNonno, LOFTID Chief Engineer, Langley Research Center (LaRC)

• Shaun Daly, JPSS-2/LOFTID Mission Manager, Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

• Eugenio Marin, JPSS-2/LOFTID Integration Engineer, Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

• Caleb Weiss, JPSS Program Manager, United Launch Alliance (ULA)

• John Reed, Program Manager, United Launch Alliance (ULA)

• Pete Wilczynski, JPSS Program Executive, NASA Headquarters

• Brooke Burns, JASD Knowledge Management (KM) Team, NASA Headquarters

• Tara Roberts, JASD KM Team, NASA Headquarters

• Louis Morrell, JASD KM Team, NASA Headquarters
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 3

Purpose and Workshop Overview

The Joint Polar Satellite Sysytem-2 (JPSS-2) - Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID)

best practices (BP) workshop occurred over two days, on February 15th and 16th hosted by the Launch Services 

Program (LSP) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Led by the Joint Agency Satellite Division (JASD) JPSS-2 Program 

Executive, the workshop served as an opportunity for all members of the JPSS-2/LOFTID teams, which 

included Program and Project managers, mission managers, chief engineers, and contractors, to collectively 

reflect upon and discuss key elements across the lifecycle of the missions, and identify what factors led to the 

successful launch. 

In the past, NASA has learned from both mission success and launch failures, and as a result, there is an 

organizational impact related to each mission at NASA, and in particular the JPSS-2/LOFTID launch. There were 

complexities related to these missions that made them unique and yet the fundamental elements remain 

similar in so many capacities to other missions – rideshare, relationship between Primary and Secondary, and 

communication, cost, and schedule implications.

Workshop participants were encouraged to submit topics in advance for discussion ideas, which were then 

added to the agenda. Each participant offered their own unique perspective but also contributed to the 

overall collective, complex, dynamic, and collaborative success of this launch. The pertinent mission 

management information and knowledge collected is intended to be shared across JASD, the Science Mission 

Directorate (SMD), and ideally throughout NASA so that others may leverage from this experience and 

potentially implement the success criteria and processes into future similar missions. 

In total, the two-day workshop had 20+ attendees, both in person and virtual via Microsoft Teams, with 

representation from over 7 organizations:

• NASA Headquarters

• Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)

• Langley Research Center (LaRC)

• Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

• NASA Launch Service Program (LSP)

• United Launch Alliance (ULA) 

• Booz Allen Hamilton Knowledge Management Team

The workshop was organized around main topic areas: Programmatic, Technical, and 

Communications/Stakeholder Engagement, and outlined as 1) Pre-Launch and 2) Launch Week/Site activities. 

The main goals included:

✓ Discuss the successes factors and criteria of the JPSS-2-LOFTID launch

✓ Discuss major challenges and lessons learned (LL)

✓ Document key takeaways, identify trends and highlights to be shared, as well as identify gaps and areas 

for improvement

Purpose of the document: While the JPSS-2/LOFTID launch resulted in a success for both missions, both teams

faced numerous challenges along the way such as the COVID-19 pandemic, staff changes, rideshare mission 

difficulties, and launch day anomalies. This report provides details how the various teams and stakeholders

navigated these challenges together, which led to a successful launch. The hope is that this successful

experience can serve as an example for other NASA-rideshare missions and provide BP and LL that can be used
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 4

across the Agency to ensure the continued success of all NASA missions. In particular, this was an especially 

critical launch because the JPSS-2 and LOFTID rideshare partnership ultimately allowed for both missions to 

accomplish their science goals.

Overview of JPSS-2 & LOFTID

In the early morning of November 10th, 2022, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s 

JPSS-2 and NASA’s LOFTID launched aboard an Atlas V 401 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base in 

California. On November 16th, the JPSS-2 satellite officially changed name to the NOAA-21 satellite whose 

mission involved reporting data to help scientists forecast severe weather such as blizzards, hurricanes, 

tornados, and wildfires. NOAA-21 orbits the Earth 14 times a day with an altitude of 512 miles to track the

following: Water Vapor in the Atmosphere; Temperature across the Earth; Health of the Ozone Layer; Smoke, 

Ash, Dust, and other particles in the atmosphere; Greenness moisture and plane temperature; and Flooding, 

Power Outages, and more in severe weather events

To accomplish this data tracking, NOAA-21 houses 4 major instruments. In sum, all four instruments convert 

their weather data into radio waves to be sent to ground stations across the globe. NOAA collects, manages, 

and disperses all the weather data so that the public can benefit from all the information their weather 

satellites provide. While NOAA manages the weather data, they also provide the funding and requirements for 

the satellites they want built. JASD within SMD takes in the requests from NOAA and leads the effort to 

acquire and develop the space systems that match NOAA’s needs as well as meet the NASA 7120.5F 

requirements. Due to the success of NASA in building hundreds of space instruments in accordance with 

7120.5F requirements, NOAA trusts NASA and specifically, the JASD team to handle many of their satellite

needs. The two organizations have worked together to build and launch satellites for over ten years and have 

plans to continue working together for years to come. The success of the JPSS-2/NOAA-21 satellite program 

continued the string of successful launches and shows the value of having the two organizations work 

together.

For the launch, JPSS-2 sat atop the Atlas V rocket with the LOFTID payload sitting underneath JPSS-2. After 

launch, JPSS-2 planned to separate at 28 minutes. At 66 minutes, LOFTID would power on and 9 minutes later 

would separate. LOFTID served as a demonstration that an inflatable aerodynamic decelerator technology 

could help land humans on Mars in the future. NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate worked with ULA 

for the LOFTID mission. The LOFTID design presented a step forward in deceleration technology with the 

LOFTID re-entry vehicle measuring in at 19.7 feet, the largest blunt body aeroshell to ever go through

atmospheric entry. LOFTID had the goal of decelerating from hypersonic speed to subsonic flight (under 609 

miles per hour). It was the first orbital flight with heat shield 

Workshop Key Takeaways

This section outlines the most important key messages collected during the workshop, and includes trends, 

BPs, and recommendations related to programmatic, technical, and communications issues. 

• The most critical takeaway of the workshop that directly impacted the success of the mission launch 

was the ability to establish commitment to the mission, continuous team building, and recognition in 

the strength of positive working relationships, which drove collaboration and mutual respect across all 

teams.
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 5

No doubt technical expertise contributed to the launch success, but the overall sentiment was that by clearly 

defining roles and responsibilities, establishing commitment, mutual respect and open communications

resulted in an environment of trusted partnerships across all teams that lead the JPSS-2/LOFTID mission’s 

success. The teams were complex and diverse in experience, skill sets, location, and expertise. However,

collectively they succeeded because there was a shared vested interest from all in the success from the 

beginning and continued until launch of each mission. 

A few opportunities were also identified for future missions based on this launch:

• Culture of Trust: Recognize that open, transparent communication styles from all team leads is 

fundamental to creating and establishing an environment of trust and respect across all teams

o Missions should identify tools, training, and methods such as reviewing lessons learned to establish 

this skill and enhance it across the teams; teams should also create regular feedback loops and 

discussions to address any concerns or improvement areas as all must lead by example and be able 

to recognize where growth and learning opportunities might exist

• Resource Sharing/Rideshare Training: NASA’s Rideshare Users Guide (RUG) and other helpful resources

related to rideshares and mission LL should be readily referenced, socialized, and shared amongst all 

mission teams

o Consider establishing a common knowledge management process with clear resources and 

communications outline that is set up at the start of missions to ensure all teams are informed, 

have the right resources, expertise, and tools available and continuously accessible 

• Team Expertise: Evaluating skill sets, experience and learning gaps prior and during the mission is critical 

to avoid any mishaps especially at the last minute or later in the timeline, both at centers and launch site

o Ensure a balanced team of all levels of experience, so that team members can ask for help when 

needed and rely on the working knowledge of more experienced staff; ideally, this knowledge 

should be shared across all teams and levels whether related to launch vehicle, site and clean 

rooms expectations, etc.

o Managers can identify skill/expertise gaps and create roadmap to fill these with training and/or 

additional experienced resources

o LSP, ULA, and GFSC all stepped up to share working experienced knowledge with team members 

that were either unfamiliar or less informed of certain processes and requirements; this learning 

environment was fundamental to success across programmatic and technical challenges

Key Takeaways Table

Topic Area Key Messages Recommendations

Programmatic • Outlining roles and responsibilities at the 

start of the project was critical to establish 

common understanding of reporting 

requirements and expectations which was

critical to communications, funding profile, 

and tracking risks; resulted in culture of trust

that fostered success

• Commitment, mutual respect, and 

collaboration was critical across both 

missions’ collective success. Team members 

were committed to being honest, having 

open communications on issues and risks, 

• Revisit outlined team roles and 

responsibilities regularly over the duration 

of the mission due to varying factors, such 

as, staff/leadership changes, technical 

impacts, pandemic/external, etc. to provide 

clarity on expectations related to reporting, 

communications, and even funding

• Each team ensure buy-in at the start of the 

mission project, to establish success criteria 

which involved trust, transparency, and 

commitment to avoid resistance, rework,

and other workload challenges
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 6

and helping each mission succeed resulting 

in an environment of trusted partnerships; 

everyone had vested interest in flying JPSS-2 

and LOFTID

• Working collectively with Program, Project,

and ULA (responsible for launch vehicle) to 

identify potential schedule, cost and 

mechanical issues and risks on an ongoing 

basis proved helpful for troubleshooting

issues amongst all the teams

• Ensure teams have sufficient resources and 

the skill sets required to support long term 

missions; identify gaps and create roadmap 

to fill these with training and/or additional 

experienced resources 

Technical • Establish clear understanding of break points 

and gates, and how technical components

can affect spacecraft requirements

• Identify at what point a rideshare mission 

can determine its mass/weight load and 

breaking points. The earlier, the more 

flexibility the mission can have when it 

comes to launch readiness

• Identify suitable mass simulator back-up or 

other launch options early in case secondary 

is not ready within the launch window 

• With multi-payload missions, outlining and 

defining “Do no harm” criteria is essential

from the start and integrating into reviews

• Consider at the beginning of rideshare 

missions the desire to use the $20M 

integration budget for SMD rideshare 

missions to offset the costs of analysis for 

additional payload 

• Importance of visual data sets of launch 

video feed: ability to have imaging from the 

launch vehicle and associated data was 

critical to documenting and capturing the 

visual aspect of the launch

• If there are unique needs related to “Do no 

harm” to ensure mission success from the 

rideshare payload, outline these for budget 

and cost implications and to ensure 

certainty

• Important to distinguish Do no harm to 

mission success vs. Do no impact to 

programmatic effort

• ULA subject matter experts provided

guidance and review of “Do no harm” 

requirements and outlined criteria to make 

it clear for everyone; this should be a 

requirement because this also led to 

credibility when it was folded into reviews

to help mitigate risk and eliminate surprise 

challenges

• Having cameras at the launch should be a 

requirement; can drive community impact 

and outreach

Communication

and

Stakeholder 

Engagement

• Relationship building was essential as all 

leaned on each other at some point; 

respectful working relationship between the

Primary and Secondary was essential and 

helped to reemphasize the importance of 

both payloads; they did not have competing 

missions but yet both were aimed to succeed 

with separate resources

• LOFTID team understood and preached at all 

times their secondary missions

understanding to Do No Harm status to the 

primary. At no time was there a press to alter 

primary risk posture. Rather focused on 

mitigation techniques with willingness to not 

fly if unresolvable. 

• ULA should continue to share LL and be

integrated into mission reviews, which

brought opportunity, analysis, recovery, 

and integration support (this was their 

financial obligation since it was a “no funds 

exchanged agreement”), and was valuable 

since they had prior experience and key 

insight

• Primary and Secondary relationship was a

balanced partnership; missions should 

strive for this type of relationship to drive 

results

• Evaluate how STMD (or any partner) can be 

integrated and is an important partnership
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 7

• Frequent and consistent meeting cadence

was established for technical leads to share

progress and risks; this was carried through 

the duration of the mission and set 

expectations from the start related to 

information sharing and discussing concerns 

and issues head on

• NASA should be open to public/private 

partnerships; there is value and enhanced 

technology that comes out of these 

maintained relationships

• Stakeholder involvement and continuous 

reiteration of commitment to launch, at key 

reviews, was important to keep the mission 

on track

• Leadership and media were too eager to 

communicate success; therefore, the

Program and Project Team should outline 

and take the lead in launch messages/timing

• Establish a main point of contact/

gatekeeper from Primary Project Team and 

Engineering team to manage unexpected 

challenges on the day of the launch and 

outline related roles and communications 

to these challenges

Opportunities • As this mission was enacted in 2017 only a 

few months after the initial NASA direction to 

enable rideshare on future missions, there 

was a learning curve related to multiple

mission processes (launch environments and 

for payload safety process for LOFTID); GSFC, 

ULA, and LSP were able to share experiences

and provide instruction when needed on 

informing team members

• LSP brought a lot of insight and education

on expectations related to mechanical and 

space flight, rideshare, and gate reviews and 

how to be a good hosted payload

• The common understanding of standard 

operating procedures and protocols related 

to cleanroom environments and launch site 

expectations needed to be shared with all 

involved before proceeding

• Working styles and communications can vary, 

but a common understanding of expectations 

was embedded throughout this mission

which was a key piece in enabling success

• Evaluating skill sets, experience and 

learning gaps prior and during the mission 

is critical to avoid any mishaps especially at 

the last minute or later in the timeline

• Providing training or further informational 

materials to ensure any unknown 

components are addressed when it comes 

to knowledge gaps

• LSP, ULA, and GFSC all stepped up to share 

working experienced knowledge with team 

members that were either unfamiliar or 

less informed of certain processes and 

requirements; this learning environment 

was fundamental to success

• Communicate common understanding of 

cleanroom and launch site expectations to 

all team members to ensure seamless 

operational integration at launch site

• Recognize that open communication styles 

from Project and Program leads is 

fundamental to creating environment of 

trust; identify tools and methods to 

establish this skill and enhance it across the 

teams and create regular feedback loops

and discussions to address any concerns or 

improvement areas

Question for NASA: How do you leverage from existing missions, yet also be innovative?
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 8

Detailed Workshop Findings

This section includes detailed comments and findings documented throughout the workshop and is organized 

by Pre-Launch and Launch Week/Site activities.

Pre-Launch

Communications

• The established meeting cadence drove strong, open lines of communication 

• Expectation setting 

o Utilizing “swim lanes” with roles and responsibilities diagram, especially when it comes to 

funding, helped to set boundaries and clear expectations; created culture of trust based on 

outlined expectations from the beginning

o Secondary needs to have realistic expectations of what they are in control of

o Outline what the expectations are for the various deliverables and their associated 

milestones up front

o Ensure team has skillset necessary and if not, reach to leadership for support

• Consistent communications indicating changes/issues helps to avoid surprises and fosters trust 

amongst the group; clear and strong messages and recognized importance of the Primary and 

Secondary relationship (this was communicated to all that the strength and partnership was key to 

success)

• Reporting remained important to keep everyone informed; often hardware became the priority 

but was important to not let the reporting requirements slip

• Pre-briefing amongst the Program and Project before final reviews/briefs proved to be beneficial 

so that all details were ironed out before presentations to leadership that discussed cost and 

schedule updates

• Gate reviews are necessary as they allow senior leaders to be in the same room and gain the 

confidence they need from the Agency on the success of the rideshare mission(s). HQ’s Program 

Executives should make efforts to minimize overall impacts of extensive coordination and prebriefings with all partners before major gate reviews.

• Attitude matters – having a good attitude and working together is important to success

• The teams worked more “organically”, figuring out what works best for a given setting and letting 

relationships and communication grow as needed, which helped enable success

Relationship Building and Culture of Trust

• Recognizing the difference between being a Primary and Secondary on a mission, and working 

collectively to bridge any gaps between these two relationships was critical for seamless 

partnership and transparent communications

• Strength of team member relationships is crucial because will depend on them and the established 

culture of trust when navigating challenging issues/concerns to help resolve issues timely and 

respectfully

• Commitment to the mission, particularly after the decisional Flight Planning Board (FPB) review, 

was critical and a shared sentiment by all; minimized impact to JPSS-2 across all four years and 

enabled buy-in at all levels from all stakeholders which was impactful in all aspects: reviews, 

resolving technical issues, reporting requirements, etc.

• Milestone Reviews also can foster environments for relationship building and open transparency
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 9

• Make it clear to each entity that the goal is to work together and not to interfere with their 

respective tasks, and following through in actions that your goal is to be a “team”

• Open sharing of information enabled teams to easily see the perspectives of their partners and 

enabled them to see where they could step in to alleviate certain concerns

• Having a “how can we help” attitude as opposed to a “that’s not my job” attitude; teaming and 

working environment was needed for resource and facility access

• LOFTID appreciated that JPSS/JPSS-2 leadership didn’t think of LOFTID as encroaching on their 

territory, but instead adopted an attitude of helping out and encouraging the project at key 

moments, and publicly at key events. LOFTID was never made to feel like a “second class” effort, 

which, for smaller projects like LOFTID was vital for morale 

• “Seeing is believing”: visiting contractor sites to see development of instruments and launch 

vehicle parts was helpful to create common understanding amongst integration efforts

• In a few instances, the team used previous and existing relationships across organizations to 

resolve issues; maintaining good working relationships with internal and external stakeholders 

contributed to resolving issues and helping expedite things along

Utilize Resources

• The ULA Rideshare User Guide proved to be good reference for how to be a “good” rideshare for 

those that were learning about the integration and complexities of rideshares

• ULA did a really good job of capturing lessons learned and it was helpful to all that these were 

readily shared and discussed throughout the mission with team members

• Some individuals felt like they lacked knowledge in areas, but thankfully were able to lean on other 

stakeholders for support; missions had a culture of helping others and learning from experienced 

team members

Technical 

• Do No Harm

o Having a detailed list of what is expected/needed to satisfy DNH is really helpful for all

o Contractor has an established DNH approach appropriately integrated that process in 

Mission Success Review lifecyle- creates deadline and ensures potential surprises are 

adequately addressed

o Having vested interest in LOFTID’s success to see technology move forward was one goal, 

but overarching was “do no harm” and tracking the data to ensure it was the “right 

opportunity to fly” was the mentality that led to collaborative success across both missions

o Beyond contamination and do not harm, critical impacts include launch logistics and launch 

date 

o Start communicating and understanding all Do No Harm criteria very early on in the 

project, and meet regularly to reevaluate criteria and applicability. Make sure everyone is 

“on board” early in the process so there are no surprises

• The Primary and Secondary were included in the monthly JPSS Program IMSR, to share more 

details related to issues and progress

Financial 

• Rideshare needs to budget for compensation for the primary payload as they will cause 

programmatic impacts just by being a part of the mission
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 10

• Rideshare must have funding to cover their costs they are responsible for – mission uniques, etc.

• Projects will always end up incurring unexpected costs – need to prepare for that

• Primary missions can incure cost impacts to SC contractors that is not currently covered as part of 

the Rideshare cost coverage in an instance when analysis needs to be redone

Schedule

• When setting deadlines, it is important to prepare for circumstances that could throw off the 

schedule

• Slips occur and technical items can arise for secondaries as delivery nears. Looking ahead for a 

final “real” final fly or mass simulator date can be a challenge but worth the effort to establish. 

Think ahead to ensure team is in agreement on core positions near launch for this and other wide 

areas of interest to management and mission stakeholders

Launch Site/Week

Space Act Agreement

• Overall, the Space Act Agreement potentially added a complexity that was unexpected, and 

further thought and analysis from the team should be shared on whether to determine how 

beneficial the Space Act Agreement was for the JPSS-2/LOFTID launch. A few comments included:

o Extraordinary benefit to ULA and NASA from sharing of technology perspective

o Launch site support capability by ULA was tested as part dual role on LOFTID. Both a SC 

build team and LV integrator role test manning limits 

o Changes were not totally communicated all the way through the Agreement and impacted 

the launch/prep site. Specifically, the facility planned to be utilized by ULA for build up of 

LOFTID was no longer available and LSP was asked to find a workspace that could be paid 

for by LaRC and traded for with ULA no exchange of funds from NASA to ULA per the SAA

Launch site

• Get the teams there at least 3 or more days in advance for dry run, and to address integration 

issues, and familiarize everyone with launch site requirements and expectations; teams should 

collaborate and be prepared to ask questions and be able to field them as well from various 

stakeholders and leadership during launch week/day 

• Need a more integrated meeting to outline operational integration gaps and needs related to 

launch concerns and issues

• LSP held detailed meetings at least six months prior to launch detailing what may and may not 

occur which was helpful during launch 

• Secondaries may not have experience with the cleanliness environment then make sure you have 

a conversation about it beforehand – what to expect, what and will not happen in there, things to 

account for, etc.

• Minimize footprint as best you can for launch – only have people in the room that need to be 

there

• Maintain vigilance of schedule and know the constraints and unexpected things not documented 

(travel, time zone, etc.)

Dress Rehearsal and Timeline of Events
NASA Headquarters

Science Mission Directorate

JPSS-2 – LOFTID Best Practices Report

 11

• The Fit check 6 months ahead provides great value; meeting the Engineers and seeing the parts 

was beneficial to gain intricate understanding of the instruments and integration

• Need to outline communications for both success and failure/delays at the launch to be prepared 

for all situations

• Multiple dress rehearsals are beneficial, if time and cost allow, even if Secondary has been through 

it before 

• Everyone had to be flexible and work together to trouble-shoot unexpected issues that were 

resolved; when leadership was on-site, there should have been some space given to the Project 

team to address anomalies without a larger audience

• Work with the media team in advance to address launch communications and timing

Next Steps/Conclusion

Following the JPSS-2/LOFTID workshop, many repeatable, valuable BPs were identified that contributed 

directly to the overall success of the launch, and futures launches. As the aerospace community continues to 

navigate rideshare launches, it is the hope that these findings will be referenced and utilized to play a role in 

continuing to enable launch success. Moving forward, the JPSS-2/LOFTID team will work to socialize these 

findings within NASA and to the broader community, as well as continue to collect LL to build upon what has 

already been uncovered. It will be crucial to continue to further identify BPs, while also utilizing those known,

so that missions may be able to continue refining key launch processes, in hopes of making every rideshare 

launch as efficient and effective as possible.

By sharing this JPSS-2/LOFTID rideshare success story, it may remove uncertainty for others and in fact, it may

inspire, inform, and reassure that with success always comes challenges.