1. PFP CDR RFA Response 1 UCB MAVEN Particles and Fields CDR RFA Response Chris Smith

2. PFP CDR RFA Response 2 UCB MAVEN-PF-CDR-RFA-001 Title : Thermo-Optical Properties Reviewer: Eric Grob Action: Confirm that GSFC Coatings Committee has blessed the thermal properties for the critical Z93C55 white paint and the Germanium Black Kapton MLI outer layer Rationale: Very different values used by SC and P&F for the same white paint (Z93C55) resulting in very different EOL performance…..I doubt they are both correct ? Response: Agreed. See below for a survey of properties to date. The UCB thermal model has been updated to use BOL: α =0.13, ε =0.94 and BOL: α =0.45, ε =0.88 which is conservative for the MAVEN mission, maybe too conservative. We will be submitting our own samples for AO testing and will get a blessing from GSFC on out thermal properties for both the white paint and GeBk.

3. PFP CDR RFA Response 3 UCB MAVEN-PF-CDR-RFA-001 Estimated Completion Dates: Model Updated to Conservative Values: complete GSFC Blessing on Optical Properties: 08/01/11 Sample Complete Testing: 09/01/11 Paint BOLEOL Comments aeae Z93SC550.140.94 From TP-2005-212792 Z930.160.92 From TP-2005-212792 Z930.190.89 Gilmore, STCH Z93 0.550.92Gilmore, STCH, 10 yrs GEO Z93P0.160.910.20.88Hume Peabody, GPM, EOL=38 months=9.08e21 atoms/cm2 AO Z93C550.20.85 Manufacturer Data, Alion Z93SC550.20.8 Manufacturer Data, Alion LM "White Paint"0.140.910.450.86From Lockheed MAVEN system model Z-93C55 ?0.130.940.450.88From Mark Hasegawa for GOES mission Z93C55 0.440.91Cassandra Ojeda, JPL, 5 years GEO Z93C55 0.310.89 JPL Radiation Testing, 100keV electrons, 5 hours @ 10.5 nA/cm2 (ADHESION 5A) Z93C550.152 0.203 Mark Hasagawa, GSFC, (9.3e15 20keV e-/cm2) + (1.2e16 2keV p+/cm2) + (1123 NUV ESH)

4. PFP CDR RFA Response 4 UCB MAVEN-PF-CDR-RFA-002 Title : Thermal Analysis Reports Reviewer: Eric Grob Action: Provide the thermal analysis reports for the various boards in the PFDPU and the instruments themselves. Rationale: Different institutions are responsible for the boards in the PFDPU; UC Berkeley has one person doing the analysis for the boards within the instruments themselves. No board/card level thermal analysis was shown at this CDR to document the design meets the EEE-INST-0002 de- rated limits at protoflight unit temperatures. Nothing in the back-up charts. The PFDPU level results presented on Wednesday use a coarser detail than these board level models and I would like to review them. The MAVEN project must also review them and deal with any waivers/deviations that might result. Response: Detailed thermal analysis will not be run on all 24 boards but will be limited to those boards with a watt density of 100 W/m2. This equates to the 4 highest dissipation boards in the PFDPU and may also include some of the instrument boards. All other boards will be analyzed as well but using a simpler distributed property model. Results in the form of board and component temperatures will be provided as well as a description, similar to CDR, of each board model. All board designs will be reviewed by the thermal engineer before going to layout. Estimated Completion Date: 08/01/11