LISA Pathfinder Mission Status

1
LISA Pathfinder Mission Status
2
Mission Elements

• The launcher services are baselined to be
  provided by Eurockot, backup DNEPR
• The Spacecraft Prime Contractor is Astrium Ltd.
  (UK) with core industrial team including Astrium
  GmbH (D) and SciSys (UK)
• The LISA Technology Package (LTP) is provided by
  an European team managed by the LTP Management
  Office
• The Disturbance Reduction System (DRS) is an
  American equivalent of the LTP and is provided by
  NASA-JPL
• The Ground Segment is designed and implemented by
  ESOC. The Science and Technology Operations
  Coordination (STOC) will be established at ESTEC

3
System

• The space segment consists of
• A science spacecraft which carries the technology
  packages
• A disposable propulsion module for apogee raising
• Ground interface single 15m X-band antenna.
• 8 hours per day communication
• 6 days timeline
• 7 days data storage
• Launch nominally on Rockot
• Operations by ESOC
• Science Technology Operations Centre at ESTEC

4
Launcher status I

• Baseline launch vehicle Rockot
• Procured from Eurockot, Bremen, D
• Breeze KM upper stage
• Proven vehicle with heritage
• Launch from Plesetsk/Russia
• Injection into 200x900 km orbit
• Max lift-off weight of S/C 1910 kg
• 1194 mm std separation system
• Facility to be upgraded for bi-propellant
  fuelling (vapour traps, waste disposal, etc)

5
Launcher status II

• Backup launch vehicle Dnepr
• Procurement from Spacetech, D
• Compatibility maintained until PDR
• Proven vehicle
• Silo-launch from Baikonur Kosmodrome
• Injection into 300x2000 km orbit
• Max lift-off weight of S/C 2250 kg

6
Contractual actions

• LPF Contract with ASU (Scisys and ASD) for the
  Implementation Phase signed in May 2004
• ITT for subcontractors were to be issued between
  Jan and Sep 2005
• Multi Lateral Agreement approved by the Council
  in October 2004
• Inclusion of France in MLA approved by SPC and
  AFC in February 2005 signed by all delegations
  in May
• Contract with ASD negotiated and kicked-off on 26
  January 2005
• ITT for caging Mechanism contract with Laben (
  subco) negotiated and kicked-off on 20 May
• ITT for Acousto-Optic Modulation Unit offers
  received. Contractor has been selected
  (Contraves, CH) and kick-off on 7 July
• IS offer by CGS/Laben evaluated by ASI (with
  ESA). Kick-off expected by July
• Various µ-propulsion technology activities
  been/being kicked-off

7
Spacecraft Progress

• LPF System Requirements Review held in May/June
  2004? additional analysis/work to be performed
• System Requirements Review Close-out (including
  LTP) held in October November 2005 (Board on Nov
  5) ? Successful
• System definition consolidation on going
• Preparation of subcontractors ITT on-going
  according to schedule
• Preparation for Preliminary Design Review to be
  held in July-September 2005
• Micro-propulsion technology work in progress
• FEEP at ALTA, Delta PDR for Microscope was held
  on 29-30 June (Board 28 Jul)
• FEEP at ARCS new technology contract in progress
• Cold-gas test results evaluation on going and new
  tests planned
• Technology Readiness Review held in May/June 2005
  (Board 22 Jun) ? Successful

8
LTP problems

• LTP continues to experience problems in meeting
  the programme deadlines
• In mid 2003 (LPF ITT) LTP delivery to ASU was
  June 2006 (6 months contingency claimed)
• In February 2004 (LPF negotiation) LTP delivery
  was December 2006 (contractual baseline to ASU)
• In January 2005 (ASD LTP negotiation) LTP
  delivery was December 2007(subject of a CCN with
  ASU)
• In March 2005 (ASD Progress Meeting) LTP
  delivery was March 2008
• Cost increases wrt the original estimates of the
  ESA contribution (e.g. Caging Mechanism,
  integration activities)

9
LTP problems why?

• Facts
• Interdependency of deliveries (many suppliers
  depend on other suppliers, with no contractual
  bindings, for their final delivery)
• Late start of the LTP contracts
• Architect, started in Jan 2005
• Italian IS contract not started yet
• PRODEX contract for the IS FEE started in April
• AOMU offer just selected
• Caging Mechanism just kicked-off)
• Design evolution (e.g. 1553 MIL bus, mass
  restriction, October 2004)
• Other possible reasons
• Apparent low commitment by the suppliers due to
  lack of resources (e.g. institutes limited buffer
  of resources)
• Low (insufficient) budget allocated to the job by
  all parties
• Protective attitude of some parties, not allowing
  the proper implementation of the rôle of the
  Architect as defined in the Management Plan
• Insufficient commitment by the Architect to
  effectively operate as a Prime Contractor

10
Consequences

• Delays in LTP delivery ( 1.5 years) reflects in
  additional cost to LPF Prime contractor (and ESA,
  CCN already negotiated)
• Additional costs to LTP Architect (and ESA) due
  to late deliveries by suppliers
• Additional costs due to the previous lower
  industrial estimates of the ESA LTP procurements
  (CMA and Integration) only partially offset by
  French contribution on the AOMU (also higher than
  estimated)
• Delays in launch, hence delay in LISA

11
Remedy

• Phasing period introduced in the LPF Prime
  contract to allow the LTP to Phase in
• ESA Project Team to concentrate on critical LTP
  development
• National suppliers to commit to current technical
  specifications, design baseline and plans
  (including delivery dates)
• National suppliers to start contracts without
  delays
• National suppliers to ensure funding and
  availability of contingency margins
• National suppliers to guarantee adequacy of
  resources at institutes/industry
• ESA/ASD to promote and maintain a culture of
  mutual trust, openness and team spirit.

12
LTP Short Term Planning

• LTP situation needs to be redressed by September
  2005
• A check point at the next Steering Committee
  meeting in July (date 14 July) shall ascertain
  that
• Critical technologies are ready (TRR in June)
• All contracts are in place
• All parties have accepted the current
  specifications, design baseline and plans
• All parties have ensured adequate resources
• The LTP consortium is organised and committed to
  work as a team
• LTP Preliminary Design Review successfully
  passed
• The LTP development is managed by ESA/ASD/NPM
  according to the rules of the agreed Management
  Plan
• Report to the SPC in November (verbal report in
  September) for reconfirmation after situation is
  sorted out

13
But what about the DRS?

• JPL and NASA-HQ informed on the recommended
  cancellation of the GRS on April 27
• ESA instructed ASU accordingly on April 29 in
  time for PDR in June. This change was beneficial
  to the spacecraft as would solve mass margin
  problem, mainly caused by envisaged non
  compliance of the LTP (25 kg)
• NASA-HQ informed ESA on the GRS reinstatement on
  May 27
• In order to solve mass and financial problems ESA
  decided to delete one redundant micropropulsion
  system (the cold gas)
• PDR to be delayed of one month doc delivery end
  July, Board 29 September
• Open issues
• GRS reinstatement Stanford/JPL relations?
  Configuration change? Schedule change?
• How do we protect programme against a FEEP
  failure? Back-up on ground (CG or FEEP)? Back-up
  on orbit (two FEEP systems)? Back-up by DRS
  colloidal?

14
To be confirmed