Ken Schwer Project Manager

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Ken Schwer Project Manager"— Presentation transcript:

1 Ken Schwer Project Manager
SDO Overview Ken Schwer Project Manager

2 LWS Independent Review Team
Louis Demas Chair Jeff Jones Deputy Chair Thomas J. Sutliff Programmatics Richard E. Snyder Programmatics Louis R. Ignaczak Operations and Communications TBD Science Mark K. Jacobs Cost Analysis Steven M. VanHooser Schedule Analysis Beth Wahl Systems Engineering Virginia Leigh Hall Systems Engineering Dr. Carl J. Rice Optics Steve Battel Mechanical and Electrical Systems Ted Hammer Software and Safety & Mission Assurance Joseph Srour Ionizing Radiation, Energetic Particles Laura Mills Pointing and Control John Iacobucci Team support/Coordination

3 SRR/SCR GSFC Code 300 Review Team
Tom Cygnarowicz Chair Beth Keer Programmatics Alan Posey Mechanical Don Miller Programmatics Mitch Davis Electrical Steve Coyle Ground System & Mission Ops. Federico (Fred) Herrero Detectors Samuel Placanica GN&C Scott Glubke Propulsion Greg Greer Thermal Steve Scott Systems Shane Hynes          Systems Mike Hagopian Mechanisms

4 SDO Video

5 PDR Preparation Preparation for SDO PDRs planned and guided by:
SDO Checklist for Subsystem PDRs 9/17/03: Distributed a checklist to guide the various subsystem PDRs & Peer reviews. “Demonstrate that a sufficiently mature subsystem definition, design, & development/verification process is in place to allow the subsystem development effort to move out of the preliminary design phase & into the final design phase.” SDO Guideline for Mission PDR preparations 10/3/03 Distributed a guideline considering the PDR requirements of GSFC Code 300, Code S Handbook, Confirmation Review Requirements, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, SDO MAR, & SEMP. “The Preliminary Design Review demonstrates that the “right system” has been chosen by: 1) A preliminary design exists that is compliant with the requirements & operations concept; 2) The cost, schedule, & risk are consistent with project resources & constraints; 3) Justifies that the maturity of the design effort is appropriate to support proceeding with detailed design activities.”

6 LWS IRT Terms of Reference Phase B to C Confirmation Assessment (CA)
The CA will cover all elements of the life cycle of the mission including the mission definition, design, development, & operations phases. The program documentation will also be provided in draft form if the CA occurs before the SDO Project transition to implementation due to immaturity of the LWS program. For each element, the assessment will stress identifying & qualifying the risks for items that include but are not limited to: TECHNICAL (Road Map) Definition of Mission Success Criteria, both for full & minimum mission success Level 1 Requirements; Mission Sys. Eng. section Definition & configuration control of science requirements (both full & minimum science requirements) & validity of analyses confirming flight system capability to support these requirements Level 1 Requirements; Sys. section; & overall PDR; Peer Review packages on MIS (WEB Site) Traceability & flow of science requirements to flight hardware Level 1 Requirements; MRD (464-SYS-REQ-0004); Sys., Subsys., Instr. Sections Architectural definition & system/subsystem requirements specifications Sys., S/C Overview, Subsys., Instr. Sections; Req. Specs. on MIS Preliminary system/subsystem/component design & traceability to requirements S/C Overview, Subsys. Instr. sections; Peer Review packages on MIS Critical component performance analysis Peer Review packages on MIS Quality of parts & projected waivers Mission Assur. section; MAR (464-SA-REQ-0001) on MIS Identification of critical hardware for which ETU hardware is built/not built Observatory, Subsys., sections; WBS (464-PROJ-MGMT-0001) on MIS Completion of ETU test program prior to CDR Observatory Overview, Subsys. sections; Schedule Book available – disk provided to IRT Use of "Heritage Hardware", & justification for it’s use S/C Overview; Subsys., Instr. Sections Adequacy & Stability of resource estimates (weight, power, data) S/C resources: 464-SYS-SPEC-0007, 0008, 0009, 0010 on MIS; S/C Overview, Subsys., Instr. sections Control of interfaces Instr. Accomm. section; Draft Electrical ICD’s & Mech. CAD dwg. available

7 LWS IRT Terms of Reference Phase B to C Confirmation Assessment (CA) Road Map cont’d
MISSION OPERATIONS Validity and adequacy of Operation Concepts S/C Overview, Gnd Sys. sections; DMR (464-GS-REQ-0005) on MIS Guidelines for Mission operations Gnd Sys. section; Ops. Concept (464-GS-PLAN-0010) on MIS Draft Mission Data Mgmt. Plan, including data archiving & data rights policies 464-SCI-PLAN-0052 on MIS Adequacy of mission operations & data analysis schedules & budgets (agreed to by Program Scientist, Science Director, & Division Directors) Gnd Sys. section; NAR/Programmatics session DSN Requirements & Cost N/A PROGRAMMATICS Organizational roles & responsibilities, mgmt. processes & procedures, & system WBS SDO Overview; WBS (464-PROJ-MGMT-0001) on MIS; NAR/Programmatics session Who's in charge - who makes trades - Science/Technical/Programmatic SDO Overview; NAR/Programmatics session Experience and competence of Project Management Staff SDO Overview; NAR/Programmatics session Adequacy and maturity of prime/subcontractor procurements NAR/Programmatics session Experience and competence of instrument team & spacecraft builder Subsys, Instr. sections; NAR/Programmatics session Adequacy and availability of design, manufacturing, integration, & test facilities Subsys., Instr., I&T sections Metrics used to measure project performance & project control methods Configuration control & quality assurance plans & procedures Mission Assur. & Sys. Safety section; NAR/Programmatics session Project-level education & public outreach plans Draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documentation Finalized & in sign-off – available Signoff of all letters of agreement (LOA’s) & interface controlling documents between participating organizations committing funding and/or support to the project No Foreign contributions; MOA with JSC for White Sands usage; Dev. Plans with GSFC Subsys., Instr. contracts,; IV&V agreement

8 LWS IRT Terms of Reference Phase B to C Confirmation Assessment (CA) Road Map cont’d
COST MANAGEMENT Fidelity of cost estimates & adequacy of contingency Inputs to IRT ICE; NAR/Programmatics session Sufficiency of funding (both total funding & phasing of funding) to support development efforts NAR/Programmatics session Adequacy of cost management processes at instrument/spacecraft level & Project level Identification of Cost Driver Requirements (such as Contamination Control) SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT Feasibility of schedule plans (top level and bottoms up) and adequacy of contingency Observatory Overview, Subsys. Section; Schedule Book avail.; disk provided to IRT; NAR/Programmatics session Adequacy of schedule management processes at instrument and spacecraft level as well as project level NAR/Programmatics session Allocation of resources and facilities during integration and testing of the spacecraft I&T section; NAR/Programmatics session Timing of instrument CDR's and observatory level CDR's Observatory Overview, Instr. Sections; NAR/Programmatics session Identification of critical path and near-critical paths Observatory Overview, Subsys, Instr. Sections; NAR/Programmatics session Identification of long lead parts and early parts procurements Mission Assurance, Instr. Sections; NAR/Programmatics session

9 LWS IRT Terms of Reference Phase B to C Confirmation Assessment (CA) Road Map cont’d
RISK MANAGEMENT Adequacy and maturity of risk mitigation and management plans and procedures (documenting a thorough assessment of technical, cost, and schedule risks) Risk List (464-SA-LIST-0001), Risk Mgmt. Plan (464-SA-PLAN-0003) on MIS Utilization of top 10 issues chart SDO Overview section Mitigation Schedule Risk List (464-SA-LISR-0001) on MIS Metrics used to measure mitigation performance Risk impact vs. Resources (Are sufficient schedule and budget in place if risk occurs?) NAR/Programmatics session Risk impact vs. Success Criteria (If risk occurs, what is impact on mission success criteria?) Risk List (464-SA-LISR-0001) on MIS; SDO Overview section Reliability numbers for minimum science and full science System Reliability, Analysis, & Trades, SPF sections; data avail. at review Status of Failure Modes and Effects Analyses Identification of Single Point Failures and Mitigations Approved Technology Development Plan which includes identification of required enabling technology and a verification of its maturation beyond TRL 6) N/A, no new technology; Project Plan (464-PROJ-PLAN-0001) on MIS Descope Plans: Descope options vs. Risks (How do descopes effect Risks?) Descope options’ affect on Mission Success Descope options already implemented Ranking of descope options Risks associated with testing program (testing at assembly level vs. integrated level) Will be part of continuous risk process; Risk List (464-SA-LIST-0001) on MIS; I&T, Verification sections The overall scientific impact will also be evaluated, as well as the ability of the scientific instrument to deliver the proposed science Level 1 Requirements; Sys. section

10 Road Map for IRT LWS Terms of Reference
DOCUMENTATION Project Plan 464-PROJ-PLAN-0001 Risk Mitigation Plan 464-SA-PLAN-0003 Project Master Schedules & supporting schedules Mailed a disk to S. Vanhooser Reports from other review teams (Systems Mgmt. Office Reviews, Peer & Design Reviews, etc.) for the previous year Please see on how to access all the reviews. Presentation materials from Enterprise &/or Center Program/Project Mgmt. Reviews Already provided ICR & ICRR Work Breakdown Structures with associated budgets 464-PROJ-MGMT-0001 Program Level Requirements Appendix (Level 1 Requirements) including minimum & full science requirements & descope options 464-PROJ-REQ-0008 Technology Development Plan N/A, SDO has no new technology Mission Data Management Plan 464-SCI-PLAN-0052 Project Mission Ops. Plan that includes flight, ground, science ops. & ops. Concept 464-GS-PLAN-0010 Launch vehicle performance requirements 464-LV-ICD-0055 Acquisition strategy Part of the Project Plan Documentation tree and traceability matrix 464-PROJ-MGMT-0007 & 464-SYS-REQ-0004 Education and Public Outreach Plan 464-PROJ-PLAN-0054 Data Management Plan, including data archiving and data rights policies Mission concept 464-GS-REQ-0005 Resource allocations with margins 464-SYS-SPEC-0007, 0008, 0009, 0010 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documentation 464-PROJ-LEGL-0022 Letters of Agreement (LOAs) None, no foreign contributions Other data that may be deemed appropriate (Systems Engineering Mgmt. Plan) 464-SYS-PLAN-0006, + WEB Site

11 Living With a Star (LWS) Program
Living With a Star Science Objectives SDO is the 1st mission under the Living With a Star (LWS) Program. LWS is part of NASA’s Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) theme (Space Science Enterprise/Code S). LWS utilizes a systems approach (inter-related missions) to develop the scientific understanding to address those aspects of the connected Sun-Earth system that directly affect life and society. Primary goal of the SDO mission is to understand, driving towards a predictive capability, the nature and source of the solar variations that affect life and society by determining. Living With a Star (LWS) Program How and why does the Sun vary? How does the Earth respond? What are the impacts to humanity? Current LWS Missions

12 Mission/Project Overview
Received (12/01) NASA HQ Code S approval for GSFC in-house implementation. Investigations selected thru Announcement of Opportunity process. Mission development & management at GSFC. S/C build & Observatory integration/testing will be performed in-house at GSFC. GSFC responsible for Gnd Sys. development/management & Mission Operations. Instrument contracts managed by GSFC – Principal Investigators responsible for development of their Instrument & Science Operations Center. April 2008 EELV launch from KSC into GEO-Transfer Orbit (GTO), circularize to GEO-Sync Orbit, inclined 28.5 degrees with semiannual eclipse seasons. Spacecraft: robust/redundant, 3-axis stabilized, solar-tracking with low jitter, continuous high rate data (130 Mbps), & 5 year life. Single ground station with distributed Science Operation Centers. Non-Science driven level 1 requirements: 3200 kg SDO Observatory mass allocation with remaining LV lift capability reserved for potential secondary payload. GTO insertion transfer orbit with a minimum perigee of 300 km for possible secondary GTO payload options.

13 SDO Driving Requirements & Challenges
High data volume, coupled with tight requirements on data loss & degradation. Instrument data degradation & loss Data interruption & loss requirements are critical to Science goals & significantly drives system design (capture 99.99% of the data, 95% of the time). Geosynchronous orbit Selected to support continuous data downlink capability; drives mass, launch vehicle, & propulsion requirements & places SDO in high radiation environment. Long mission life (5 year) Drives reliability (especially of mechanisms), redundancy, & radiation requirements. Instrument pointing & stability Tight pointing & stabilization needed to meet instrument requirements. Technology enhancements – 4k x 4k CCDs to meet science requirements.

14 Organization Flow Space Science Enterprise
Ed Weiler, Associate Administrator (AA) Chris Scolese, Deputy AA Executive Oversight K. Ledbetter W. Townsend L. Demas D. Perkins J. Campbell Sun-Earth Connection Division Richard Fisher, Division Director Charles Gay, Deputy Director LWS Program Science Madhulika Guhathakurta, LWS Program Scientist (PGS) Barbara Giles, Deputy LWS PGS William Wagner, SDO PGS LWS Program Dana Brewer, LWS Program Executive Headquarters GSFC Center Director: Al Diaz LWS Program Office Nicholas Chrissotimos, Manager Mary DiJoseph, Deputy Manager Robert LeBair, GM Lead LWS Project Science Chris St. Cyr, LWS Senior Project Scientist Barbara Thompson, SDO Project David Sibeck, Geospace Missions (GM) Scientist Janet Barth, Space Environment Testbeds (SET) Scientist SDO Project Office Kenneth Schwer, Manager Robert Lilly, Deputy Manager SET Project Office Neil Barthleme, Manager JHU/APL JHU/APL Director: Richard Roca Key: Program Control; Line Control Oversight Geospace Missions (GM) Project Office TBD, GM Manager TBD, Deputy Manager Geospace Mission Science TBD, GM Mission Scientist

15 GSFC SEC Program SEC 460 Gilberto Colon
Associate Director/Program Manager for SEC Programs Nicholas Chrissotimos Deputy Program Manager Linda Greenslade Program Business Manager Paula Wood Secretary GSFC SEC Program Catherine Mikkelsen Project Support Mgr. Bob Miara Project Support Specialist Patricia St. Aubin Teresa Cooper Dan Paugh Bobbie Power Willie Santos DeLee Smith Mandy Tatum Rosaline Ude Program Support Jim Rogers Kevin Milligan Dennis Wicks Scheduling Debbie Dusterwald Linda Hepler Configuration Mgt. E. Felicite-Maurice EPO Michael Kelly Systems Assur. Mgr. Code 300 Tim VanSant Chief Technologist Pat Logan Procurement Mgr. Code 200 Rex Elliott Julie Janus STP/461 Gilberto Colon Acting Program Manager Don Carson Program Manager Kenneth Ford Deputy Program Manager Richard Ryan Program Business Manager Joanna Gavaghan Secretary LWS/462 Nicholas Chrissotimos Program Manager Mary DiJoseph Acting Deputy Program Manager Linda Greenslade Program Business Manager Paula Wood Secretary Chris St. Cyr Lead Prog. Scientist Code 680 Vacant Program Instrument Systems Mgr. Richard Vondrak Lead Program Scientist Code 690 Vacant Program Instrument Systems Mgr. Steve Aloezos Program Systems Manager Vacant Program Systems Engineer SDO/464 Ken Schwer Project Manager Rob Lilly Deputy Project Mgr. Tom Miller DPMR Barbara Thompson Project Scientist Geospace Missions Robert Lebair Formulation Manager Space Environment Testbeds Tom Dixon (800) Formulation Manager Janet Barth Project Scientist Ken Label Project Technologist STEREO/463 Nicholas Chrissotimos Acting Project Manager Jim Adams Deputy Project Manager Mike Delmont Deputy PM - Instruments Pietro Campanella Deputy PM Resources Michael Kaiser Project Scientist Magnetospheric MultiScale Don Carson Acting Project Manager Gifford Moak Mission Business Mgr. Steve Curtis Project Scientist Magnetospheric Constellation Ken Ford Acting Formulation Mgr. Debbie Dodson Mission Business Mgr. Tom Moore Project Scientist Ken Potocki APL Manager Larry Zanetti APL Lead Scientist Solar B Larry Hill Project Manager MSFC Debbie Dodson Mission Business Mgr. John Davis Project Scientist Geospace Electrodynamics Connections Ken Ford Acting Formulation Manager Debbie Dodson Mission Business Mgr. Joe Grebowsky Project Scientist Status as of 2/26/04

16 Assistant Project Scientist
Barbara Thompson Project Scientist Dean Pesnell Assistant Project Scientist Ken Schwer Liz Citrin (post PDR) Project Manager Rob Lilly Deputy PM Tom Miller Deputy PM Resources GSFC SDO Project Education & Public Outreach SEC/LWS Program Team Eliane Larduinat Science Support Jennifer Rumburg Web Development Emilie Drobnes E/PO & Production Science Working Team John Ruffa Mission Systems Engr. Wanda Harrell Business Manager Bob Calvo System Assurance Manager Dave Ward Spacecraft Systems Eng. Manuel Maldonado Software Systems Eng. Tom Kenney GN&C Systems Eng. Wendy Morgenstern Deputy GN&C Sys. Engr. Josephine San Debris Engineer Steve Merrihew Instrument Sys. Eng. Chad Salo Instr. Accommodation Eng. Mike Bay Pete Gonzales Systems Support Sharon Straka Contamination Mike Xapsos Radiation Dennis Krus Antonio Reyes Noman Siddiqi Parts Engineer Richard Marriott Materials Ellen Berkeley Renee McCaskill Resource Analyst Belinda Barker Terri Lynne Hynson Jack Arrison Project Support Toni Hegarty Marsha Gosselin Configuration Control Jim Perry Mike Lilly Scheduling Carol Hamilton Rick Stickle Safety Matt Samuel Marvin Roush Tom Manson Reliability Jerry Klein Risk Management Mike Garner Software QA Mike Jones Steve Himes Hardware QA Carlos McKenzie Kathy Tennant Contracting Officer Barry Murphy Intranet Development Barbara Lambert Photo & Video Tom Anderson Instrument Systems Manager Brent Robertson Observatory Manager Raymond Pages Ground System & Mission Operations Manager HMI Philip Scherrer (PI) AIA Alan Title (PI) EVE Tom Woods (PI) Mike Scott HMI Instrument Mgr. Eric Grob AIA Instrument Mgr. John VanBlarcom EVE Instrument Mgr. Tech. Support Team Ken Lee Mechanisms Pete Shu CCDs Wendy Morgenstern ACS Gary Davis Propulsion Bob Defazio Flight Dynamics Rich Hollenhorst EGSE Systems Dennis Hewitt Systems Development Engr. Kevin Hughes L.V. I/F & Verification Engr. David Amason I&T Jack McCabe C&DH Mike Powers Ka-Band Comm. Maria Lecha S-Band Comm. Mark Walters Flight Software Harry Culver Subsys Data Node Amri Hernandez-Pellerano Subsys Pwr Node Giulio Rosanova Mechanical Dan Nguyen Dan Powers Thermal Rich Barclay Mechanisms Denney Keys Power Paul Kim Gary Won Electrical Bill Potter Deputy Gnd Sys. Mgr. Hun Tann MOC Implementation Jeff Ferrara Flight Operation Joe Howard FOT Tom Bialas Mike Uffer Data Distribution Marco Midon Antenna/Facility Chris Spinolo Network & Comm. Robert Oertly Test & Verif. Craig Weikel Eliane Larduinat Stephania Young Frank Scooville Systems Engineering Update: 03/01/04

17 GSFC SDO Project Observatory Subsystems Amri Hernandez-Pellerano
Brent Robertson Observatory Manager Jack McCabe C&DH Wendy Morgenstern ACS Sharon Straka Contamination Bob DeFazio Flight Dynamics Mike Powers Ka-band Comm. Denney Keys Power Dan Nguyen Thermal Gary Won Electrical Systems Engineer Code 565 Elec. Systems Expert Team Elec. Systems Analysis Mike Blasi Harness Engineer Vernon McCarter Lead Technician for Harness Fabrication Harness Fab Team Harness Technicians Paul Kim Electrical Systems Ron Barasch Deputy PDL Steve Schumacher SubSystems Sys Eng Larry Pack Manufacturing Lead Eng Harry Culver Data System Lead Chris Dailey High Speed Bus Lead Eng Kevin Hawkins Ka_Comm Card Lead Tom Winkert Downlink ASIC Lead James Calderwood Phyllis Hestnes Test Analysis John Folk S_Comm Lead Eng Lars Hovmand DC/DC Card Lead PSE ASD Card Lead Noosha Haghani Backplane Card Lead FPGA Design Support Ken Li Single Board Computer Lead Eng Kevin Ballou Bulk Memory Card Lead Lee Nearhoof FPGA Design Support Joel Gambino ACS Hardware (Lead) Bob Spagnuolo ACE Box Lead Steve Andrews ACS Analysis (Lead) Tom Correll Dynamic Simulator Lead Stephn Leake Simulator Software Lead Agbontaen Imasuen Simulator Hardware Lead Patsy Dickens Amani Ginyard Contamination Engineer Project Support Michael Woronowicz Amy DeLisa Contamination Eng Analytical Support Chad Mendelsohn Flight Dynamics Analyst Seth Shulman Flight Dynamics Victor Sank Ka-Band Systems Jeff Jaso Ka-Band Transmitter Xuan Nguyen Ka-Band Modulator Ken Hersey Ka-Band HGA Ed Gaddy Solar Array (Lead) Leo Lee Battery (Lead) Mike Burns PSE (Lead) David Sullivan Battery GSE (Lead) Dan Powers Thermal Engineer Dave Steinfeld Gary Davis Propulsion Dewey Willis I & T Jon Lewis Components Apurva Varia Analysis Mike Wilks Steve Graham John Zahniser Technicians Dennis Hewitt Systems Development Eng. Maria Lecha S-band Comm. Harry Culver Subsys Data Node Richard Barclay Mechanisms Dave Amason I&T Lead Giulio Rosanova Mechanical Systems Kevin Hughes Verification Eng Chuck Monroe Gimbal Mechanical Eng Carlos Lugo Gimbal Electrical Engineer Suk Yoon Designer Gimbal System Ken Lee Instrument Mechanisms Don Wood Senior I&T Engineer Vacant Lead Test Conductor Kevin Hughes Mechanical Sys Supp Peter Mule Structural Analysis Lead Jeff Bolognese Sr Analytical Supp Nick Galassi Jeanne Palmer Ray Suziedelis Steve Chaykovsky Jim Jeans Analytical Supp Carlton Miller Dynamic Analysis Danielle Vigneau Inst Module Lead Eng Ben Rodini Composite Structures Support (OB) Keith Thompson Designer-Inst Module Dave Robinson S/C Bus Lead Engineer Chris Johnson Designer-S/C Bus Module Paul Connors Propulsion - Mech Sys-Lead Eng Rick Bitzel Designer Propulsion Module Jason Hair Deployables/Mech Lead Eng Suk Yoon Designer Deployables/Mech Steve Patton Lead Mechanical Technician Karl Schuler George Mooney Brian Kittle Hal Baesch Technician Support Mark Walters Flight Software Mark Walters C&DH S/W Lead Joseph Polk S/W Engineer Steve Slegel Alex Schoening Peter Kutt S/W Eng SSN Common S/W Ezre Yeheskeli PSE S/W Eng Ronald Miller Alan Cudmore/PT Dwaine Molock/PT Lisa Hoge ACS S/W Lead Peter Kutt ACS S/W Eng Lou Hallock Dave McComas/PT ACS Software Eng Dave Dawson Tawanda Jacobs GCE S/W Eng Kimberly Hawkins ACE S/W Eng Robert Bjork Steve Mann Ru Perera CM Librarian Rick Coon Test Lead Vacant Test Eng Maint Team ACS Team Test Eng OPS Team Janet McDonald Ann Koslosky Test Eng. Amri Hernandez-Pellerano Subsys Power Node Rich Hollenhorst EGSE Roger Miller EGSE Support Update: 03/01/04

18 SDO Progress Ground Sys. SRR Pre-Prop. Conf. Proposals Received Code S
Approval For GSFC In-House Project Kickoff Mtg. Mission Definition Retreat SRR/SCR 1st External Review Systems Retreat HMI PDR S/C Subsys PDRs Mission PDR 4/24 12/20/01 2/1 3/28 9/5 9/30 12/5 4/8 11/20 1/9/04 3/12 Instrument Accommodation Assessment Start Trades & Concepts Staffing Phase A Phase B 1/18/02 3/7 4/19 6/25 8/19 10/2 2/11/03 9/3/03 12/18 2/17 3/4 SDO AO Released Internal Science MD Sci. Ctr. 1st Monthly Status Mtg. Instruments Under Contract Systems Requirements Retreat Initial Confirmation Review EVE PDR AIA Accomm. PDR Instruments Selected Gnd. Sys. Element Peer Reviews Formulation Status To SEC

19 Programmatic Changes since SCR
ICR decision: SHARPP instrument suite (KCOR, Magritte, & SPECTRE) removed from SDO & replaced with the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) from LMSAL. Contract in place late Oct LMSAL team was already working on SDO’s HMI instrument, so they were familiar with Project, requirements, interfaces, & design. From a science standpoint, AIA replaces the science provided by Magritte & SPECTRE. AIA based on successful TRACE telescope design/heritage. Coronagraph no longer part of mission. Accommodation: S/C resources available, S/C mods minor, HMI/AIA SOCs combined, LMSAL providing GTs. Optics Free Spectrometer (OFS) assembly removed from EVE (approved by NASA HQ SEC) due to the high development risk (identified at SCR). EVE determined an alternate & low risk approach for performing calibration checks. Involves incorporation/use of additional calibration photo diodes to monitor short term calibration changes on-orbit & sounding rocket under flights for periodic checks of absolute calibration changes. As part of ICR approval letter from NASA Code S, Project received direction to use 4/08 as the new launch date to meet LWS funding profile. GSFC Instrument Managers in place for all PIs. GSFC mgmt. assignments associated with Lunar Exploration effort resulted in Ken Schwer moving to National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) and Liz Citrin replacing Ken as the SDO PM (post PDR transition).

20 SDO Observatory with AIA
Current SDO Configuration with AIA Instrument Previous SDO Configuration with SHARPP Instrument SPECTRE AIA KCOR Magritte

21 SDO Observatory Approximate characteristics: Instrument Module
SDO Investigations: Helioseismic Magnetic Imager (HMI); PI: Phil Scherrer – Stanford; Images the Sun’s helioseismic and magnetic fields to understand the Sun’s interior and magnetic activity. Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) and Guide Telescopes (GT): PI: Alan Title – LMSAL; Multiple simultaneous, high-resolution images of the corona over a wide range of temperatures. Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE); PI: Tom Woods – LASP, Univ. of CO; measures the solar extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiance to understand variations. HMI EVE AIA SUITE (2) Solar Arrays S/C Bus & Prop. Modules Approximate characteristics: Mass: kg, 30% margin Width: m Height: m (2) Antenna Booms

22 SDO Spacecraft Bus Delta IV 4 m dia. Fairings Atlas V

23 HMI - Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager
PI: Phil Scherrer, Stanford Univ. HMI Overview: The primary scientific objectives of the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) investigation are to study the interior sources and mechanisms of solar variability and to study the relationship of these internal physical processes to surface magnetic field structure and activity. Measurement Requirements: (a) Stabilized ~1 arcsec resolution full-disk Doppler velocity and line-of-sight magnetic flux images at least every 50 seconds for Helioseismology studies and (b) Stabilized ~ 1 arcsec resolution full-disk vector-magnetic images of the longitudinal solar magnetic field at least every 90 seconds for magnetic variability studies Project Drivers: Development of 4k x 4k CCDs and companion readout electronics. HMI implementation: Stanford University is lead institution and provides the Science Operations Center, science team coordination, helioseismology and magnetic field science, and E/PO Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab provides HMI instrument and magnetic field science Current Status: Successfully completed PDR Heritage: MDI, FPP, SECCHI and SXI CCD (2) CEB (2) Michelson/ Lyot Assy Image Stabilization Telescope Assy HMI Optics Package Assembly HMI Electronics Box Key Milestones Milestone Status Phase A Completed PDR CDR Nov 2004 Optics Package Alignment Dec 2005 HMI Calibration Mar 2006 HMI Complete June 2006 Delivery Nov 2006

24 HMI Organization Philip Scherrer Alan Title Deborah Scherrer
HMI Principal Investigator Alan Title HMI-LMSAL Lead Science Team Deborah Scherrer Educ. & Public Outreach Jesper Schou Instrument Scientist Rock Bush HMI-Stanford Prg. Mgr. Larry Springer LMSAL SDO Prg. Mgr. Rick Bogart Data Access Rasmus Larsen Processing & Analysis Lead Jim Aloise Ground System Lead Barbara Fischer HMI Deputy Prg. Mgr. Edgar Thomas Camera Electronics Dexter Duncan CCDs John Miles System Engineering Rose Navarro Thermal Mike Levay Integration & Test Russ Lindgren Electrical Lead Glenn Gradwohl Mechanical Lead Dave Akin Mechanism Lead Rick Rairden Optical Elements Jerry Drake Inst. Software Lead

25 AIA – Atmospheric Imaging Assembly
PI: Alan Title, LMSAL Guide Telescope Assembly CCD/CEB Radiators AIA Overview: AIA studies the active dynamics of the solar atmosphere in high spatial resolution and high temporal cadence in several spectral (and therefore temperature) regions including the extreme ultraviolet (EUV). AIA focuses on the evolution of the magnetic field in the Sun’s atmosphere and its interaction with embedded and surrounding plasma including the flaring and non-flaring corona. Measurement Requirements: AIA measures stabilized full-disk ~1.2 arcsec resolution images of the solar chromosphere, transition region and inner corona over a temperature range of to 20 MK in eight spectral channels with an image cadence of 10 seconds. This will allow discovery of the causal relationship between the relatively slow magnetic field revolution and energy storage, and the rapid energy releases in flares and CME’s, which have a direct effect on earth’s environment. Project Drivers: Development of 4k x 4k CCD’s and associated readout electronics, and the schedule recovery from the late inclusion of AIA on the SDO mission. AIA Implementation: Lockheed Martin Solar Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL) is responsible for the AIA investigation including the development, delivery and operation of the AIA instrument and the development and conduct of the AIA science data processing. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) is a key partner (subcontractor) both scientifically and in development of major instrument subsystems. Current Status: A definitized contract was established February 12, 2004 for Phases A and B. Heritage: TRACE, SOHO/EIT Milestones: Nov ’03: Ltr. Contract; begin Phase A Mar ’04: PDR-1 Apr ’04: PDR-2 Nov ’04: CDR Feb ’07: Deliver to GSFC Apr ’08: Launch

26 LMSAL SDO Organization
James Lemen AIA Inst. Scientist Alan Title AIA Principal Investigator & HMI-LMSAL Lead Phil Scherrer HMI Principal Investigator Stanford University Karel Schrijver AIA Science Lead Jake Wolfson Technical Advisor Frank Friedlaender Resource Manager Edward McFeaters Mission Assurance Larry Springer Program Manager Rock Bush HMI Program Manager Brock Carpenter System Engineering Ruth Mix Configuration Mgmt. Rock Bush Combined SOC Development HW & SW Gary Kushner Wolfson (A) AIA Deputy PM Barbara Fischer HMI Deputy PM SAO Subsystems – Golub System Engr. – Carpenter Optics – Wülser Mechanical – Chou Thermal – Yanari Integ. & Test – Levay Guide Telescope – Wülser System Engr. – Miles / Carpenter (A) Optics – Rairden Mechanical – Gradwohl Thermal – Navarro Integ. & Test – Levay Drake Software Akin Mechanisms Lindgren Electronics Duncan CCDs Thomas Camera Electronics HMI & AIA SOC

27 EVE - EUV Variability Experiment
PI: Tom Woods, LASP/CU Instrument Overview: EVE measures the solar extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiance as needed for Space Weather operations and critical for LWS geospace research of the ionosphere and thermosphere. Measurement Requirements: Measure the solar EUV irradiance shortward of 105 nm, with 0.1 nm resolution longward of 10 nm, with 20-sec time cadence, and with 25% absolute accuracy over the prime 5-year mission. Project Drivers: Obtaining 1024 x 2048 CCDs from MIT on schedule, obtaining flight gratings on schedule, obtaining SDN and S/C Simulator electronics from GSFC on schedule, and new CCD radiator design (prototype radiator under test now). Current Status: In Phase B, preparing for PDR (Dec. 17/18). Also, descoped the OFS subassembly as risk mitigation for schedule. Replaced the OFS in-flight calibration capabilities by extending ESP spectral coverage, adding zeroth-order diode traps for MEGS, and requiring annual underflight rocket calibrations. Has little or no impact on science, budget, or schedule. Task Milestones/Products: Sept Began Phase A July Completed Concept Study Report (Phase A) Dec EVE Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Sept EVE Critical Design Review (CDR) Nov. 06 Delivery to GSFC Channel l (nm) Dl (nm) Time Cadence MEGS-SAM 1 10 sec MEGS-A 5 - 37 0.1 MEGS-B ESP 0.1-7 & 2- 7 0.25 sec MEGS-P (ZOT) & 121.6 8 - 30

28 EVE Organization GSFC SDO Program Office Science Management
Frank Eparvier, Proj Sci Don Woodraska, DP Mgr EVE PI Thomas Woods LASP Administration Daniel Baker, Director Caroline Himes, Adm Officer Steve Erickson, EVE Contract Project Manager Michael Anfinson EVE Science Team System Engineering Greg Ucker, Lead Rick Kohnert Gail Tate, SSE Quality Assurance Sherry McGlochlin LASP Engineering Mike McGrath, LASP Eng Dir Jim Westfall, LASP EE Mgr Heather Reed, LASP ME Mgr Neil White, EVE EE Lead Roger Gunderson, EE Eng Steve Steg, EVE ME Lead Bret Lamprecht, Thermal David Crotser, Optical Ginger Drake, CCDs Integration & Test Rick Kohnert, Test Mgr Gail Tate, EVE SOC Mgr Mission Operations Randy Davis, LASP MO Dir Gail Tate, EVE SOC Mgr -LASP- MEGS IEM -MIT LL- CCDs for MEGS Greg Berthiaume, MIT PI David Weitz, MIT PM -USC- ESP Darrell Judge, USC PI Don McMullin, USC PM Andrew Jones, USC Sci -USC Contractors- Swales, Mech Space Instruments, Elec -NRL- Don McMullin, ESP Sci

29 SDO Mission Operations Center
SDO Ground System Architecture S-Band: TRK, Cmd & HK Tlm SDO Ground Site #2 (White Sands) S-Band HK Tlm, TRK Data External S-Band: TRK, S-Band Tracking Station Cmd & HK Tlm ground system Acquisition (Includes 72-hr storage) Data Cmd Ka-Band: 150 Mbps Science Data Same Interfaces Ka-Band as Prime Ground Site ground system S-Band: TRK, (Includes 48-hr storage) Cmd & HK Tlm Ka-Band: 150 Mbps Science Data SDO Ground Site #1 SDO Mission Operations Center (White Sands) Observatory Commands S-Band Acquisition Data ground system Station Control Telemetry & Command (T&C) System Flight Dynamics (Includes 72-hr storage) System Observatory Housekeeping Telemetry Ka-Band Orbit Determination Tracking Data ASIST / FEDS Maneuver Planning ground system Station Status Telemetry Monitoring Product Generation (Includes 48-hr storage) Command Management R/T Attitude Determination Sensor/Actuator Calibration Status and Control Ka Science Data HK Data Archival (DHDS) HK Level-0 Processing Mission Planning & Scheduling Data Distribution DDS Control Automated Operations Anomaly detection plan daily/periodic events System create engineering plan (Incl. 30-Day DDS Status Generate Daily Loads Science Data Storage ) Ground Station Trending Control System HMI Science Data AIA 55Mbps Science Data EVE 67Mbps Science Data DDS Alert Notification System (ANS) 7 Mbps Control System R/T Housekeeping Telemetry HMI AIA JSOC (Stanford / LMSAL/ EVE SOC R/T Housekeeping Telemetry Palo Alto Ca.) (LASP / Boulder Co.) Memory dumps Simulated commands Flight software loads Simulated housekeeping telemetry Science Planning and FDS Products Flight Software Maintenance Lab (FLATSAT) Instrument Commands / Loads

30 SDO Project Summary Schedule Concepts/Design/Long Lead
‘99 CY 2000 CY 2001 CY 2002 CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PCA MILESTONES 7/04 Start Implementation 4/04 LRR (5 Yrs B/L EPM 5/13) Pre-Form Formulation Phase C/D Implementation Ops Phase A Phase B MISSION MILESTONES 4/03 9/03 3/04 6/04 2/05 1/07 1/08 4/08 SRR/ SCR LAUNCH ICR PDR CR CDR PER PSR AO Rel INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT 1/02 Inst. Selections 12/06 8/02 Procure Ship Build/Test AO Process Concepts/Design/Long Lead 2 mo.s 9/02 Award Contracts Integration of Instrument Module & Funct. Test 20 days SPACECRAFT DEVELOPMENT In-House ATP 1/06 10/06 Procure Build Comp.s S/C Int. S/C Bus Studies Concepts/Design/Long Lead 1.75 mo 8/07 2/07 OBSERVATORY ENVIRONMENTAL TEST Obs Env. 1/05 (7 mo.s) 5.75 mo.s 2/06 1/07 GROUND SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT GS CDR GS TRR GS MOR 1/08 Procure Freeze Procure/Develop/Test Concepts/Design 6/04 L.V. Contract Award 3 mo.s Ship 2/08 LAUNCH VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT LV Development/Integration (36 mo.s) Code M ATP & Issue RFO L-30 month funding profile 2 wks Launch 2/04 10/05 4/08 March 3, 2003 Kenneth Schwer Legend: or End of the Month Milestone Progress Bar Reserve (8 months)

31 SDO Road to Confirmation
S/C Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) data delivery to IRT 2/23/04 Instrument ICE data delivery to IRT 3/1 IRT delivers ICE inputs to SDO 3/5 LWS NAR follow-up Review 3/8 SDO Mission PDR/NAR 3/9-12 SDO meeting on ICE Inputs Week of 3/8 IRT meeting on ICE Inputs 3/12 IRT members deliver NAR reports to Chair & Deputy Chair 3/19 IRT evaluation of ICE uncertainties telecon Between 3/26 & 4/2 ICE Peer Review (IPAO) 4/7 IPAO Peer Review 4/8 Final IRT charts to Program/Project 4/12 IPAO Delta-Peer Review 4/20 GSFC PMC briefing 4/23 Deputy AA pre-brief 5/17 EPMC briefing /26 Confirmation review (Agency PMC) 6/2

32 Risk Management Risk Management Plan baselined & released by SDO CM.
Instrument teams using it to model their SDO-specific Risk Management Plans. Continuous Risk Management conducted on a monthly cycle. Risk Coordinator conducts Risk Identification/updates/status with SDO team 2nd week of month. Systems Engineering Risk Validation Board 3rd week of month. Risk Management Review Board end of month. Update Risk List & create 5x5 Top Risks for management reporting 1st week of month. System has been in place for 1 year.

33 SDO Risk Assessment (1 of 6)
As of 2/27/04 5 L I K E H O D LxC Trend Rank Approach Risk Title 1 M RAL Camera Electronics 2 CCD Development 3 Linked Procurements 4 Propellant Budget 5 Ka-Band Amplifier 6 Observatory Jitter Budget 7 New Integrated Financial Management System 1 PE 4 2 PE 2 PE 3 PE 3 6 7 New 1 PE MP PE 1 MP 6 7 4 PE 2 1 PE 5 MP 3 PE 1 PE 2 MP 7 MP 1 MP 1 MP 3 MP 1 PE 2 MP 1 1 PE 3 PE 3 PE 2 MP 2 MP 1 2 3 4 5 CONSEQUENCES Approach M - Mitigate W - Watch A - Accept R - Research Med High Low Criticality L x C Trend Decreasing (Improving) Increasing (Worsening) Unchanged New Since Last Period New Currently tracking 44 risks.

34 SDO Risk Assessment (2 of 6)
As of 2/27/04 Rank Risk Statement Approach & Plan Status 1 RAL Camera Electronics: If the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) Camera Electronics Box high-speed clock generator ASIC development does not mature by March 2004; then the delivery of the flight Camera Electronics Box would be impacted, resulting in impacts to Instrument and Observatory schedules. Context: The HMI ASIC design is based on a SECCHI design. Unfortunately, the lower-rate SECCHI design is not directly applicable to the high CCD read-out rates required by HMI. Develop board designs in parallel so either new ASICs, or older ASICs left over from SECCHI, can be used. The last wafer of the older ASICs will be packaged and screened to ensure sufficient flight spares. A technical risk is associated with using older ASICs in that they may not be fast enough to generate the best waveform for HMI/AIA. An FPGA option will also be considered in lieu of using custom ASICs. The FPGA will carry a schedule risk that a "rad hard" RTAX2000S will not be available within the needed time frame for camera development. LMSAL recommended approach is in formulation and is due in mid-March ‘04. A decision to commit to the reuse of residual SECCHI Waveform Generator ASIC’s alleviates the schedule concerns with the original plan to develop a custom ASIC for the increased SDO CCD readout speeds. Bench testing with the SECCHI ASIC has demonstrated that these ASIC’s can be scaled up to the SDO clocking speeds residual SECCHI die exist in various gradings. RAL will seek the 8 best for flight processing. RAL is still retaining an FPGA implementation of the waveform generator as a backup to the SECCHI ASIC approach. e2v will have an evaluation CCD for RAL shortly; a breadboard camera with the SECCHI ASIC and the CCD will be ready for evaluation in early April, 2004; if test is successful, FPGA backup option will no longer be considered. High

35 SDO Risk Assessment (3 of 6)
As of 2/27/04 Rank Risk Statement Approach & Plan Status 2 CCD Development: If e2v and RAL vendors have 4Kx4K CCD/electronics development issues, then Instrument schedules could be delayed. With retraction of UK contribution, perform industry survey; initiate engineering feasibility effort; form GSFC/SHARPP/HMI Board to closely track effort; bring on AETD expert. e2v has completed 3 processing runs of SDO development 4k x 4k CCD’s: 2 thin-gate (preferred) and 1 thick-gate (standard processing) devices. Successful qualitative image probe tests on all 3 batches confirm masking quality & acceptable yield expectations. A thorough operational check of a standard device using an e2v lab camera to drive the device is underway with good imaging results. Initial cooled tests (-20C) have just been performed. 3 Linked Procurements: If procurements or builds (especially linked H/W) are not properly coordinated and tracked, then schedule slips could occur in the following linked areas: SDN – FSW, ACE, PSE, HGAS, C&DH, EVE SPN – ACE, PSE, HGA SBC – FSW Tanks – Mechanical Battery & S/A – Power Identify links and associated schedules; project and PDLs develop procurement strategies (need dates & who needs to procure/track items). Audit resource allocations & evaluate parts to ensure proper margins prior to procurements. Linked procurements & associated schedules have been identified by PDLs & the Project and are monitored on a continual basis. Working & standardizing SOWs, mini-MARs, etc. & ensuring proper procurement leads lead times are in schedules. Met with the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) & an RSDO vendor to investigate the possibility of procuring components through that contract mechanism. Received Vendor responses related to draft Spec & SOW for the Single Board Computer (SBC) & the HGAS Gimbal Actuator. Conducting one-on-one meetings with vendors who responded. High Med

36 SDO Risk Assessment (4 of 6)
As of 2/27/04 Rank Risk Statement Approach & Plan Status 4 Propellant Budget: If SDO’s propellant budget needs to increase as we progress with bi-prop sys. design/analyses, then we may have to be boosted to a higher GTO perigee orbit by the L.V. (may preclude secondary payload) or redesign S/C to accommodate larger tanks . 1) Independent review and calculation of the propellant budget (already in place by Aerospace); review all worst-case stackups to make sure everything is covered. 2) Tighten req. on tank temperature to make sure maximum propellant can be safely loaded (also already in work). 3) Determine if "knowledge uncertainty" factor is required for compliance with Orbit Debris guidelines (can save 5% margin). 4) Sys. Eng., GN&C Sys. Eng. & Prop. to brainstorm other issues that will use propellant (i.e, how much could be lost in a leak, and how quickly could we respond). 5) Lift launch perigee to >300 km, reducing Delta V req. to reach orbit (200km would get back 10% margin). 6) Spec. launch vehicle procurement to add sufficient margin. Conducted independent review & calculation of the propellant budget; reviewed all worst-case stack-ups. Tightened requirements on tank temperature to ensure maximum propellant can be safely loaded. Contacted Nick Johnson at JSC, he concurs with our approach of relaxing knowledge uncertainty trigger in failure case. Med

37 SDO Risk Assessment (5 of 6)
As of 2/27/04 Rank Risk Statement Approach & Plan Status 5 Ka-Band Amplifier: If the Ka-band amplifier design degrades over life due to high-powered Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) RF Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits (MMIC) device limitations, an on-orbit failure could result that could degrade mission performance or result in mission loss (SCR RFA #43). 1) Carefully evaluate amplifier design and implementation approach to determine appropriate parts applicability and de-rating (flight parts qualification and usage, life testing, thermal design, etc). 2) Consider additional amplifier units in an enhanced redundancy configuration (allowing more graceful degradation). 3) Evaluate Life Testing; investigate heritage and other Ka-Band designs. Issue is that high power MMICs may degrade due to thermal stress. Manu. data & thermal analysis indicate MMIC junction temp. of 75 deg. C above baseplate temp. With max mounting plate temp. of 40 deg. C, the MMIC junction temp. should be 115 deg. C, safely below the 150 deg. C recommended max. SSPA #1 fab. complete & in electrical test. Accelerated MMIC thermal life test will be performed on full-up SSPA BB #1, monitoring RF characteristics continuously. Reviewed Samuel Kayali's (JPL) report on MMIC quality/life issues – his associates George Ponchak (GRC) & Eric Archer (JPL), attended Transmitter Peer Review (2/20/04). No critical RFAs received. Ka-Band PDL developing SOW/Spec. to procure SSPA out of house, if needed, as risk mitigation. 6 Observatory Jitter Budget: If the observatory jitter budget cannot be met on-orbit, then the science data resolution requirement would not be met. Ensure jitter budget includes adequate margin; perform finite element modeling to simulate propagation of disturbances thru structure & thereby establish frequency-domain disturbance spectra at every Instr. mounting location; examine an integrated analysis approach that extends the model to instrument CCDs, simulating complete end-to-end system including Instr. IMCs. Baselined new definition of jitter req. through discussions with Inst. teams which tightened S/C jitter req. to subarcseconds above 1 Hz. Our recent analysis using conservative disturbance assumptions, shows that all jitter req. can be met with at least 300% margin (provided we limit RWA speeds below significant Obs. flex modes). A completed trade that matches each AIA Science Telescope with its own Guide Telescope eliminates the risk of differential flex between the two. Med Low

38 SDO Risk Assessment (6 of 6)
As of 2/27/04 Rank Risk Statement Approach & Plan Status 7 New Integrated Financial Management System: If the new IFMP has difficulty providing the data and controls to manage the spending for a in-house Project, then SDO tracking will be difficult possibly resulting in cost and schedule impacts. Perform the following PR activities daily: 1) Check mapping of release strategy; 2) Verify PR status by contacting Finance and Procurement Offices; 3) Manually check daily transaction status; 4) Log transactions. Work with IFMP; document/submit problems. Generally experiencing the same issues reported to GSFC mgmt. by Code 400 committee. As reported, IFM Project working the issues identified. Due to the labor-intensive operations to understand & monitor transactions for a large in-house effort, – formatting large reports, comparing previous reports & multiple systems to investigate, track, & log PR information, Project has determined additional manpower is required to track & manage resources (2-3 FTEs). Possible SAP upgrades may impact Agency-wide coding structure which would cause significant work for SDO resources staff. Low

39 Addressed during 3/12 NAR Presentation
SDO Project Reserves Cost*: Addressed during 3/12 NAR Presentation (Unscheduled Months) 8.0 mos 4.08 yrs Schedule: = = 1.96 mos/yr Years until 4/08 launch Mass**: (Allocated - Estimated)% 1785kg kg = kg = % 1379.1kg kg = Estimated Power***: (Allocated - Estimated)% 1457.9w W = W = % 1121.3W W = Estimated *For now & until POP04 work, cost reserve based on POP03-1 R&D (not full cost) new development budget. **Dry mass margin measures mass margin against maximum dry mass, with maximum propellant load assumed, should be 25% at PDR. Value corresponds to Mission PDR presentation. ***Power margin is calculated assuming one failed battery cell, with battery voltage at end of eclipse.  Margin without any failed cells is 47.4%, should be 25% at PDR. Value corresponds to Mission PDR presentation.

40 Road Map for IRT LWS Terms of Reference
Risks going into SDO Confirmation Assessment (PDR/NAR) HIGH RISKS ROAD MAP SDO Budget Discrepancy NAR/Programmatics session Development of 4K-by-4K Charge Coupled Detectors and their associated electronics HMI section; HMI Instr. PDR, Risk List (464-SA-LIST-0001) on MIS Maintaining an aggressive schedule toward CDR to support a launch date in August 2007 SDO Overview section; NAR/Programmatics session MEDIUM RISKS Contamination requirements for ultra-violet instruments Contamination section Camera Electronics EVE Instrument susceptibility to radiation Sys. & EVE sections; EVE risk retired by OFS removal Collecting, down-linking, and distributing high data volumes of about 150 Megabits per second for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week Gnd Sys section; Response to ICRR A.I. avail. Depending upon international contributions for almost 40 percent of the science payload Risk retired via ICR decision – with SHARPP removal, no Foreign contribution on SDO Developing a Ka communications system Ka section; Ka Peer Review on MIS Assembling a high gain antenna HGAS section; HGAS Peer review on MIS Maintaining instrument pointing and stability S/C Overview, ACS sections Obtaining a science payload that meets the cost challenges for decreases that were made at selection

41 SDO READY for PDR Tremendous Progress since SRR/SCR
SDO Performance, Schedule, & Budget per Requirements & Guidelines Tremendous Progress since SRR/SCR SDO READY for PDR

42 BACKUP

43 Rank Impact Safety (NPG ) Mission Performance Project Execution 5 Very High I Catastrophic - A condition that may cause death or permanently disabling injury, facility destruction on the ground, or loss of crew, major systems, or vehicle during the mission. Total Loss of Mission Technical – Threatens ability to meet minimum mission success criteria, estimates exceed established margins (mass, power, volume) Cost – Greater than 10% increase over that allocated and/or exceeds available reserves Schedule – Major impact to critical path and cannot meet major milestone. 4 High II Critical - A condition that may cause severe injury or occupational illness, or major property damage to facilities, systems, equipment, or flight hardware. Loss of Science - (Does Not Meet Minimum Success Criteria) Technical –Threatens established margins Cost – Between 7% and 10% increase over that allocated, and/or threatens to reduce reserves below prudent levels Schedule – Significant impact to critical path, and cannot meet established lower-level milestone. Level 2 milestone slip of > 1 month, or Project critical path impacted. 3 Med III Moderate - A condition that may cause minor injury or occupational illness, or minor property damage to facilities, systems, equipment, or flight hardware. Degraded Mission - (Does Not Meet Full Success Criteria, Meets Minimum Success Criteria) Technical –Can handle within established margins. Cost – Between 5% and 7% increase over that allocated, and can be handled within available reserves. Schedule – Impact to critical path, but can handle within schedule reserve, no impact to milestones. Level 2 milestone slip of < 1 month. 2 Low IV Negligible - A condition that could cause the need for minor first aid treatment though would not adversely affect personal safety or health. A condition that subjects facilities, equipment, or flight hardware to more than normal wear and tear. Not Used Cost – Between 2% and 5% increase over that allocated, and can be handled within available reserves. Schedule – Minor schedule impact, but can handle within schedule reserve; no impact to critical path. Some additional activities may be required. 1 Very Low Loss of Non-Critical Function - (Loss or Degradation of Redundancy) Technical – No impact on margins. Cost – Less that 2% increase over that allocated, and can be handled within available reserves. Schedule – Minimal or no impact to schedule, no impact to schedule reserve; no impact to critical path. Non-Credible Risk – (Meets Full Success Criteria, Negligible or Minor Impact) Risk Impact Ranking Safety-related Risk: Includes the potential for personnel injury and/or damage to hardware/facilities. The SDO Risk Management process is not intended to replace the existing system safety process; safety related risks shall continue to be addressed and documented in hazard analyses. Safety related risk shall be entered into the Risk Management system only when additional resources are required (in addition to those already allocated) for hazard mitigation or when there are conflicting priorities regarding Safety, Mission Performance and/or Project Execution. Mission Performance-related Risk: Includes the potential for impact to Flight/Ground segments during operations (i.e., "end products" performing their desired functions in their operational environments). This aspect of risk addresses the potential of not meeting mission requirements, possibly resulting in degraded science or total loss of mission. Project Execution-related Risk: Includes the potential for impact to development activities or the ability to deliver the required product within the allocated budget, schedule and technical resources. This aspect of risk addresses programmatic risk related to delivering a fully functioning observatory to the launch site on time and within budget.

44 Risk Likelihood Ranking
Safety Mission Performance Project Execution 5 Very High > 10-1 >50% 80-100% 4 High 10-1 > X > 10-2 <50%..-.. >10% 60-80% 3 Moderate 10-2 > X > 10-3 <10%..-.. >1% 40-60% 2 Low 10-3 > X > 10-6 <1%..-.. >.1% 20-40% 1 Very Low <10-6 <.1% 0-20% Non Credible SDO Likelihood Ranking Has Three Scales Safety Risks are Ranked Using the Scale Defined in NPG Mission Performance Risks are Ranked Using a Logarithmic Scale Project Execution Risks are Ranked Using a Linear Scale


Download ppt "Ken Schwer Project Manager"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google