Running
Ongoing studies are looking to establish a scale for MBSE maturity levels. In addition, we believe that a reflection on the application and adaptation of MBSE in a project lifecycle is essential. MBSE appears to be well-suited and implemented in phases B and C (or equivalent in non-space sectors). While there are a few examples of MBSE application in earlier or later stages, the optimal format of these models is not evident. It is argued that current ontologies and tools are not always best suited for the early phases of a project. From a programmatic point of view, it would be essential to determine a digital model philosophy and strategy upfront in a project, analogous to the existing physical model philosophy that is established at the start of space projects. A clear definition of the evolution of these models that is required at each phase of the lifecycle will help to harmonise and smooth the development time and cost associated. It will be essential to put in place mechanisms that ensure the necessary fidelity of the models and to verify their compatibility with the physical models that are evolving at the same time. Instead of concentrating our entire effort on a ‘one size fits all’ metamodel or ontology that covers all aspects of all phases of a project, we could spend additional efforts in recognizing the specific needs of each phase and work on the interoperability of the models. Building on our previous research activities and experience in both systems engineering and space project management, this study will look to explore the different needs of models at each phase of the lifecycle, for different types of space mission. The aims would be to make recommendations on the optimal set of digital models and philosophy that will allow for interoperability, evolution of maturity, compatibility, traceability and continuity. Ideally, these recommendations would be applied on different real space projects to demonstrate and validate their effectiveness.