DOI: 10.48577/jpl.totfit
title: FRAMEWORK FOR SCIENCE TRACEABILITY MATRIX QUANTITATIVE REQUIREMENTS VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

description: Proposals submitted in response to NASA standard Principal Investigator (PI) led Announcements of Opportunity (AOs) for competed space mission concepts have multiple requirements for the science requirements specified therein. The science requirements in proposals submitted to NASA’s Principal Investigator (PI) led Announcements of Opportunity (AOs) must address multiple topics: 1. traceability from science goals to measurement requirements, to instrument requirements (functional and performance), and to top-level mission requirements, in tabular form (a Science Traceability Matrix or STM – see Fig. 1.), supported by narrative discussion; 2. descriptions of the types of measurements to be taken and the quantitative characteristics, precision, and accuracy required to attain the scientific objectives; 3. descriptions of the quality (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing accuracy, measurement precision, etc.) and quantity (bits, images, etc.) of data required to be returned; 4. descriptions of the relationship between the proposed data products (e.g., flight data, ancillary or calibration data, theoretical calculations, higher order analytical or data products, laboratory data, etc.) and the scientific objectives, as well as the expected results; 5. descriptions of how the science products and data obtained will be used to fulfil the scientific requirements and support those descriptions with quantitative analysis. Fig. 1. Table B1, Example Science Traceability Matrix with examples of matrix elements from NASA Standard AO Template v5.0 [1] However, developers of competed space mission concepts often find it challenging to accurately define the qualitative and quantitative aspects of their scientific requirements and to justify their values and interrelationships. Failure to accurately define and/or justify scientific requirements can lead to undesirable outcomes. Under specifying or insufficiently justifying requirements can lead to non-selection of the proposal. Even if selected, under specified science requirements can lead to limited scientific mission return, up to and including failure to meet mission objectives. Over specifying science requirements can also lead to non-selection of the proposal. Over specified requirements can unnecessarily drive technical and cost risk, which are common reasons for competed proposal non-selection [2]. Even if selected, over specified science requirements can lead to a reduction in scientific mission return. Over specifying science requirements leads to inefficient use of both technical and financial resources. Over specified science requirements require spacecraft that have larger Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP), and are more financially expensive, than necessary. Therefore, over specification of science requirements can actually decrease the number of objectives that a mission can achieve within the fixed technical (government furnished access to space) and financial (Principal Investigator Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC)) resources that accompany each NASA standard Principal Investigator (PI) led Announcement of Opportunity (AO). In addition, the struggle developers of competed space mission concepts have in accurately defining the qualitative and quantitative aspects of their scientific requirements and justifying those values and interrelationships leads to inefficiencies in the concept formulation process itself.