1. 1 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Particles and Fields Package (PFP) Instrument Preliminary Design Review Integration & Test David Curtis, PF Package Manager

2. 2 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 PFP Block Diagram 10cm

3. 3 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Integration and Test Plan MAVEN_PF_SYS_0022 I&T Plan submitted to Project –Matches up with PFP Verification & Validation Plan Philosophy: –Requirements are verified as early as possible at a low level Verifies subsystems, Retires risk –Requirements are verified at the highest level of assembly possible –Identify requirements which cannot be verified at a system level and ensure they are verified at the lower level before integrating –Maintain flexibility in test sequencing to maintain schedule Full set of Protoflight level tests on FM Typical Test Levels: –Subassembly (circuit board, mechanism): functional –Component: functional, mass properties, vibration, TV, magnetics, deployments –Instrument: functional, calibration, interface –Package: functional, EMC, Package Self-compatibility, interface

4. 4 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Integration and Test Flow

5. 5 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Environmental Test Flow

6. 6 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Environmental Verification Matrix

7. 7 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 MAG I&T MAG is fabricated at GSFC MAG will be functionally tested, calibrated, and the sensor vibrated at GSFC –Using SSL-provided PFDPU simulator EGSE MAG will be delivered to SSL and the electronics will be integrated into the PFDPU –Followed by functional testing to verify performance not degraded Following Suite I&T and EMC tests, MAG sensor Thermal Vac will take place at SSL –With PFDPU outside the chamber

8. 8 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 SEP I&T Instrument fabricated at SSL –Board level functional testing –Attenuator functional testing –SSD test, Select –Magnets test, select –Instrument integration Instrument bench CPT –Uses radiation source –Uses PFDPU Simulator EGSE Collimator scattered light test Instrument Calibrated –Existing automated calibration facility –End-to-End test SEP electronics integrated into the PFDPU –Followed by functional testing to verify performance not degraded Following Suite I&T and EMC tests: –Magnetics Screening –Vibration (near by subcontractor facility) –Thermal Vac

9. 9 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 LPW / EUV I&T LPW Booms and Preamps fabricated at SSL –Preamps will be thermal vac tested separately before integration due to the extended temperature range EUV sensor and LPW electronics fabricated at LASP –Board level functional using SSL-provided PFDPU simulator EGSE –EUV calibration testing LPW electronics integrated into the PFDPU –Followed by functional testing to verify performance not degraded Following Suite I&T and EMC tests: –LPW boom & EUV Magnetics Screening –LPW Boom & EUV Vibration (near by subcontractor facility) –LPW Boom & EUV Thermal Vac –EUV environments at LASP, LPW Boom at SSL

10. 10 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 LPW Boom Deployments Boom deployment testing takes place at the component level (LPW). A minimum of 2 full deployments will take place on each unit prior to the start of the environmental test program. In addition, during component level thermal vacuum tests, there will be one deployment at hot and one at cold. –whip deployment must be tested in a subsystem-level thermal vac Prior to LPW component integration Chamber and GSE cannot support both whip and stacer deployment at the same time LPW Boom cannot be deployed at the Spacecraft level –Difficulty G-negating deployment safely –During functional tests at the spacecraft level, actuator simulators can be used to verify the ability of the system to run the deployment.

11. 11 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 STATIC, SWIA I&T Instrument fabricated at SSL –Board level functional testing –MCP test –Instrument integration Instrument bench CPT –No high voltage –Uses internal test pulser –Uses PFDPU Simulator EGSE Instrument calibrated at SSL –New SWIA/STATIC automated calibration facility –End-to-End test Following Suite I&T and EMC tests: –Magnetics Screening –Vibration (near by subcontractor facility) –Thermal Vac

12. 12 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 SWEA I&T SWEA Analyzer if fabricated in CESR (France) –Board level functional testing –MCP test –Instrument integration Instrument calibrated at CESR –Existing calibration facility –End-to-End test Analyzer delivered to SSL Digital Electronics & LVPS fabricated at SSL –Board level functional tests Instrument is integrated at SSL –Bench CPT using PFDPU Simulator EGSE Instrument calibrations at SSL –Existing calibration facility –Subset of CESR tests to ensure system functionality Following Suite I&T and EMC tests: –Magnetics Screening –Vibration (near by subcontractor facility) –Thermal Vac

13. 13 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 PFDPU I&T PFDPU electronics (excluding instrument electronics) fabricated at SSL –Board level functional tests –Uses Instrument Simulator GSE, Spacecraft Simulator GSE PFDPU integrated & tested –Install Acceptance-tested Flight Software Integrate Instrument Electronics –Integrated PFDPU CPT Following Suite I&T and EMC tests: –Magnetics Screening –Vibration (near by subcontractor facility) –Thermal Vac

14. 14 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Package I&T The PFDPU is integrated (DCB, REG, IIB, MAG, SEP, LPW electronics) –Functional test to verify interfaces and compatibility The remaining instruments are integrated –SWEA, SWIA, STATIC A baseline CPT test is performed A self-compatibility test is performed –Verify instruments don’t interfere with each other Pre Environmental Review EMC testing is completed at the Package level –RE, RS, CE, CS, Transients, Inrush –Flight or flight like harnesses –Near-by subcontractor facility –Instruments bagged and purged Remaining environments are done at the Component level Final pre-delivery package CPT –STATIC may be tested and delivered separately as it is needed first at LM

15. 15 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Component Environmental Tests Magnetics Screening –Simple SSL facility – measures dipole magnitude, AC & DC Vibration –Nearby subcontractor –Sine, Random per ERD levels –Structural Loads (Sine Burst) – TBR pending analysis –Instruments bagged Thermal Balance / Thermal Vac –SSL Facilities (5 chambers available with various configurations) –Thermal Balance depending on results of thermal analysis –8 cycles per ERD and GEVS to predicts/AFT +/-10C –Nominally separate due to different environments But may consider combining some tests if ranges compatible –Last cycle followed by bakeout with TQCM

16. 16 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Thermal Test Profile

17. 17 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 SSL Integration and Test Facilities ‘Snout’ TVac Chamber (LPW deploy) Cleanroom (with 5 THEMIS probes) Magnetics Screening StationCalibration Chamber

18. 18 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Contamination Control PFP instruments shall be assembled in clean room facilities –Sensitive detectors (SWEA, SWIA, STATIC, SEP, EUV) shall be assembled on flow benches –Components will be bagged when not in clean room facilities LN2 boil-off shall be used to purge the instruments –SWEA, SWIA, STATIC, SEP, EUV –Limited times off purge Instruments shall be maintained at VC-HS levels –cleaned with IPA by PFP personnel

19. 19 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Performance Tests Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) covers all functions and modes of operation to the extent possible Limited Performance Test (LPT) is a subset of CPT covering representative modes and functions in a limited time –No external stimulus Provides repeatable functional tests for use throughout I&T and ATLO –Some adaptation required at different levels of assembly; instrument, package, spacecraft Provides data for performance trending

20. 20 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 Integration and Test Procedures Each test shall be documented by a Test Procedure –Test procedure shall identify L3 requirements to be verified by the test –Test procedure shall include pass/fail criteria –System Engineer, QA, Subsystem lead to sign off on proc before use –System Engineer, QA to sign off on completed as-run proc –QA to ensure Red-lines to be transferred into proc before next use Each completed test to be documented by a Test Report –EM and subassembly test reports may be a combination of the as-run proc and lab notebook –System Engineer to sign off on test reports, and determine if test adequately verifies associated requirements Discrepancies found during tests to be documented in a Problem Failure Report (PFR) –Starting with first functional tests at flight subassembly level –Includes any problem (including software) not immediately identified as a test setup or operator problem which cannot stress the flight article –QA will track PFRs to closure with concurrence of the Failure Review Board –Waivers by Project CCR process System Engineer to track Completed Verifications on a Verification Matrix

21. 21 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 ATLO Issues Contamination Control –Dust Covers –Purge Magnetics –Keep high fields away from sensors (tools, equipment) Stimulus for CPT –LPW function generator EGSE –SEP radiation source LPW Boom Deployment –Cannot deploy booms at system level due to G-negation issues –Use simulators to verify ability to fire actuators High Voltage –SWEA, SWIA, STATIC HV cannot be operated in air –Limits ability to do end-to-end tests –Green-tag enable plugs protect against accidental operation –Can operate in thermal vac, but not a complete test –Need a post-environments test at SSL to fully verify functionality These issues are covered in the PFP to Spacecraft ICD.

22. 22 PFP IPDR 2010/6/14 - 16 I&T Schedule Milestones LPW DFB, BEB from LASP10/24/2011 EUV from LASP 12/1/2011 SWEA Analyzer from CESR 12/1/2011 MAG from GSFC 4/16/2012 SEP, LPW, PFDPU to PFP I&T 4/16/2012 SWEA, SWIA, STATIC to PFP I&T 4/30/2012 PFP PER 5/22/2012 PFP EMC6/6/2012 Component Qualification Start6/19/2012 PFP PSR8/23/2012 PFP due at LM10/1/2012