1. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Tracker Subsystem WBS 4.1.4 1B: Schedule Summary; Critical Paths; Risks Thomas Borden Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Tracker Subsystem Engineer tborden@slac.stanford.edu Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope

2. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 2 Agenda Cost Schedule and critical Path Risks

3. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 3 Cost Carbon- Fiber Wall Total US Tracker Cost $10,688,475.26 (inflated) Significant Collaborator contribution: –Italy: purchase 5000 SSD’s, Fabricate, assemble and test Qualification, Flight and Spare towers –Japan: purchase 6400 SSD’s and support testing of all SSD’s

4. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 4 Schedule

5. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 5 Schedule

6. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 6 Schedule

7. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 7 Schedule

8. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 8 Milestones

9. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 9 Milestones

10. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 10 Milestones

11. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 11 Milestones

12. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 12 Milestones

13. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 13 Critical Path First Critical Path

14. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 14 Critical Path Second Critical Path

15. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 15 Critical Path Third Critical Path

16. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 16 Critical Path Third Critical Path

17. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 17 Critical Path Critical Path Dates: –May 1, 2003 – Start tray panel fabrication –July 30, 2003 – SLAC deliver first lot of TMCM’s to INFN-Pisa –November 7, 2003 - Qualification Towers Assembled Flow from Qual tower and Spare defined by tower testing

18. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 18 Risks TKR-1 Risk Description: –Low Tracker MCM yield. Each MCM holds 26 ICs. The MCMs are tested before encapsulation, to allow for rework. However, rework is costly, and too much rework could make it impossible to hold the schedule and budget. We need it to be the exception, rather than the rule, but so far, in the EM run, rework involving IC replacement was needed on the majority of MCMs. Risk Mitigation: –Screening and handling procedures need to be improved according to the plan described here. Risk Impact Assessment: –Possible delay in tower assembly and increased labor cost at Teledyne. Risk Mitigation Implementation Plan: –1. (Johnson, Sugizaki) Improve IC screening. The GTRC chips were not screened for the EM, some features of the GTFE were not screened, and the screening was at only 2 MHz due to technical problems. These systems will be improved and tested. An inker is being added to the probe station to remove human error in die sorting. We also may need to reject dice close to the wafer edge. (end March) 2. (Johnson, Ziegler) Improve IC handling. Detailed procedures are being written. (end March) 3. (Borden) Improve testing of the MCM PWB prior to assembly and again prior to die attach. (Mid April) 4. (Johnson, Sugizaki) Improve the MCM test software to speed up localization, of a bed IC. (June 1) 5. Improve IC design (done), especially to remove the G-chip oscillation problem. Current Status: –March 19, 2003: the GTRC probe card was built and is working well with updated test vector software. The GTFE probe card was rebuilt and is working and currently being put through thorough tests. Both cards work at 20 MHz+. The wafer testing procedure is written and reviewed and in the release process. The cleanroom has been prepared and inspected. The inker is on order (end March). The new chips have been tested and the design improvements were successful.

19. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 19 Risks TKR-2 Risk Description: –MCM-SSD CTE mismatch. The Tracker MCMs and the SSDs are connected by wire bonds, which are to be encapsulated. This interface is not yet tested. Since it goes the full width of a tray, there is a risk of damage from movement during thermal cycling. Risk Mitigation: –The flight MCMs are to be fabricated in Polyimide instead of FR4, to lower the CTE (Aramid was considered but has other undesirable features). The encapsulation will be Nusil silicone, as in the ladders, which allows some movement with low stress. The interface needs to be tested on the EM. Risk Impact Assessment: –Critical Path Impact Risk Mitigation Implementation Plan: –Build a complete functional engineering-model tray by mid April(two MCMs) in addition to the ones in the mini-tower, and put it through full qualification-level thermal-vacuum testing. (May) Current Status: –March 19, 2003: The tray panel is in hand, as are the two MCMs and the ladders. The procedure for encapsulating these bonds is being tested first on some mechanical/thermal EM trays.

20. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 20 Risks TKR-3 Risk Description: –Tray-panel fabrication start-up. Fabrication of tray panels at Plyform needs to start in early March (i.e. pre-CDR) unless the rate can be made to exceed current predictions. We have not yet seen a plan from Italy/Plyform on how to accomplish this, nor have we seen any documentation. Risk Mitigation: –SLAC assistance to Pisa in getting documentation and materials in place. Risk Impact Assessment: –Critical path impact Risk Mitigation Implementation Plan: –Acquire Carbon-Carbon material early from SLAC (done). Procure cores from SLAC (in progress). Tom Borden travel to Plyform in early February to assist with planning and documentation. Current Status: –March 19, 2003: 1. The cores were ordered and already received and shipped to Italy. 2. Tom traveled to Italy and helped prepared a draft procedure document. 3. We received a detailed schedule from Pisa for the flight build. It shows that the tray panel fab can start in May instead of March and the electronics will still be the critical path.

21. GLAST LAT ProjectMarch 24, 2003 1B Tracker Peer Review, WBS 4.1.4 21 Risks TKR-4 Risk Description: –Procurement of MCM components. MCM production at Teledyne needs to start soon to have MCMs ready to accept ASICs in late May. The design includes parts that are not yet approved but have 8- week lead times (the connectors), parts for which we have been working for a long time for approval without complete closure (polyfuses), and parts for which we do not have agreement on fabrication specifications (the PWB and flex). Furthermore, our success rate at SLAC for procuring these items for the EM was poor. We need Teledyne on contract to help us handle these procurements. The LAT parts specialist to date has never made any contacts with Teledyne. Risk Mitigation: –Increase manpower at SLAC on these procurements. Contract with Teledyne to do all of the parts receiving. Risk Impact Assessment: –Critical path impact. Risk Mitigation Implementation Plan: –Have a meeting at Teledyne, including Nick Virmani, as soon as possible to iron out the contract and specifications to be used for MCM PWB and flex procurements and specifications to be used for MCM assembly. Action also needs to be taken on the Omnetics nano-connectors to get them approved for flight. Current Status: –March 19, 2003: 1. The meeting at Teledyne was held successfully, clarifying a lot of issues. 2. The Omnetics connectors were approved and are on order. 3. The polyswitches were approved and are on order. 4. Final PWB and flex prototypes are in hand and being tested. 5. Jeff Tice and Jerry Clinton at SLAC are working the procurements and associated specifications. A quote for the PWBs was requested.