Joint Architecture Standard Overview Profile

JAS versus PROPIN Trade Study


Feature Comparison

JAS has a number of positive impacts on budget, schedule, and performance. Below is a table that illustrates these advantages when comparing a JAS-based system to a PROPIN approach.

Advantage Benefit Budget Schedule Performance

Scalable processing systems

Ability to add/remove as many nodes as are needed to support large or small systems Good Best Best
Standard processing elements Unique node designs with capability to expand as needed Best Best Good
Standard communication interfaces Enabling different vendors to be able to communicate with each other Best Best Good
Reduce SWaP Modular design allows scalability to the specific mission SWaP and performance requirements Better Good Best
M-of-N redundancy Reduce the number of spares that are needed in case of a fault Best Good Good
Utilizing industry standards Rather than coming up with proprietary solutions Best Best Good
Future-Proof Ability to easily support future technology and still be backward compatible Best Best Best

JAS vs. PROPIN Feature Comparison

Trade Study Example

The below example is a trade study which took a legacy program and redesigned it using the JAS architecture. The legacy program had several teams working independently which resulted in multiple different proprietary solutions. The JAS-based program uses common design infrastructure to integrate team methodology.

Item PROPIN JAS Savings Notes
Processing Elements 40 19 52%

JAS –3 nodes, 16 MEZ/RTM designs;

PROPIN – 40 unique board designs

Communication Interfaces 14 7 50%

JAS –SpaceWire & SRIO network, external interfaces;

PROPIN – All internal interfaces custom

Communication Protocols 20 5 75%

JAS – 5, significant reuse of flight software;

PROPIN – 20 custom communication links

Flight Boxes 17 7 59%

JAS – 7 boxes (3 node stacks w/ common electronics);

PROPIN – 17 unique boxes

Flight Cables 132 65 51%

JAS – ~65 (45 Electrical, 20 Fiber);

PROPIN – +132 ( +122 Electrical,10 Fiber)

Payload Weight 750lbs 500lbs 33%

JAS – Optimized electro-mechanical design;

PROPIN – Large number of independent designs

Payload Budget (Equivalent Year) ~$500M ~$350M 30%

JAS – significant REC in electro-mechanical design;

PROPIN – Large NRE cost

Payload Schedule 84 mo. 48 mo. 42%

JAS – significant reuse of hardware and software IP;

PROPIN – Fully custom due to mission requirements

JAS vs. PROPIN Trade Study

These savings were realized by adopting the following JAS methodologies:

  • Minimizing node types
  • Maximize reuse of nodes by utilizing both MEZ and RTM expansion modules
  • Distributed node stacks connected via simple bus power and network cables
  • Common interfaces and protocols simplifies payload at every level of integration (hardware, physical, logical, application….)