Project Managers Report Alberto Gianolio Mansoor Ahmed

1
Project Managers ReportAlberto
GianolioMansoor Ahmed

• LIST Meeting 9
• Bern, Switzerland
• July 10, 2005

2
Agenda

• NASA/ESA agreement of August 2004
• LISA Project Organization
• Mission Element Shareper August 2004 NASA/ESA
  Agreement
• Roadmap to Phase-B
• ESA Requirements for Mission Definition Review
  (MDR)
• NASA Requirements for Mission Definition Review
  (MDR)
• LIST/Project Interface and Interactions
• Framework for Mission Requirements
• Baseline Mission Requirements
• Minimum Mission Requirements
• Goals
• Status of technology development
• Role of the LISA project (NASA) in ST-7

3
NASA/ESA Agreement August, 2004

• In August 2004 ESA and NASA finalized an
  agreement for the LISA Mission Formulation that
  deals with
• Project organization
• System engineering functions
• Mission elements share
• The following terminology was agreed for LISA
• LISA Scientific Complement it includes the LISA
  Optomechanical Core Systems (LOCS), the LISA
  Instrument Metrology and Avionics System (LIMAS),
  the associated control software, microthrusters
  (TBC)
• Sciencecraft one spacecraft bus with its LISA
  Scientific Complement
• Constellation the three LISA sciencecraft
  operating together.
• Joint Project Managers Office (JPMO) LISA
  project management office composed of the ESA and
  the NASA project managers and their management
  support, chaired jointly by the ESA and the NASA
  project managers.
• Mission System Engineering (MSE) system
  engineering team co-chaired by the ESA, the GSFC
  and the JPL Mission System Engineering Managers,
  who have equal authority and report to the JPMO.
  MSE merges the system engineering teams of ESA,
  GSFC and JPL.
• Mission System Engineering Advisory Team (MSEAT)
  small advisory body to the Mission System
  Engineering.
• Integrated Technical Advisory Teams (ITAT)
  technical teams commissioned ad hoc by MSE to
  provide inputs in specific areas.

4
2. LISA Organization
5
Mission Element Shareper August 2004 NASA/ESA
Agreement

• ESA Responsibilities
• Develop and verify the Opto-mechanical Core
  Systems (LOCS)
• Build and integrate propulsion modules (TBC)
• Support Integration, Verification and Testing at
  all stages
• Support launch, commissioning and mission
  operations
• Develop European Science Data Processing segment
• Independently verify NASA developed mission
  software
• NASA Responsibilities
• Develop the LISA Instrument Metrology and
  Avionics Systems (LIMAS)
• Integrate and verify LOCS and LIMAS as a
  functioning 3-arm interferometer
• Integrate the LOCS/LIMAS/Spacecraft bus as the
  sciencecraft and verify constellation performance
• Launch, commissioning and mission operations
• Develop the US Science Data Processing segment
• Independently verify ESA developed mission
  software
• Responsibilities To Be Defined
• Micro-Thrusters
• Telescope

6
Roadmap To Phase-B (1/5)
CURRENT ESA PROCESS
Implementation
Adv. Pre-A Ind. Contract 1999-2000
Operations
Definit.
Formul.
Selection
SPC Approval
ITT
ITT
ITT
IOCR
LRR
PSR FAR
Launch
SRR
CDR
PDR
TRADITIONAL PHASES
MDR
A Mission Architecture Finalisation
C EM Design Developm.
E In-orbit Commiss.
F Operations/ Disposal
D FM Manuf. AIV
Pre-A Advanced Studies
B1 B2 B Prelim.
Detail. Des. Des.
A - B Transition
Confirmation
CURRENT NASA PROCESS

Implementation
Pre- Formulation

Formulation
LISA Project phases
Today
7
Mission Definition Review ESA requirements (2/5)

• Mission elements reference design preparation
• System engineering tasks
• Finalization of the Product Tree and of the IRD
  to PT level 4 for the P/L
• Functional diagrams
• Consolidation of the System Budgets (Mass,
  Inertia, Power, Data rate, etc)
• Risk assessment
• Review of the margin policy
• Review of the environmental constraints

8
Mission Definition Review ESA requirements (3/5)

• Key technology identification and technology plan
  
• Finalization of the MRD covering PT level 1 and 2
• Draft requirements for all elements at PT level 3
  and for the P/L at PT level 4
• Requirements verification logic and methods
• Finalization of the Mission Design

9
Mission Definition Review NASA Success Criteria
(4/5)

• The mission science objectives are clearly
  understood
• The science objectives are prioritized so as to
  define acceptable descope options
• Mission level requirements are traceable to
  science objectives
• Mission level requirements are clearly and
  logically allocated amongst the independent
  system elements
• Flight, Ground, Launch Vehicle,etc
• End to End mission architecture is selected
• It identifies a complete scenario for mission
  execution including data processing and analysis
  that will satisfy mission objectives.
• Technology dependencies are fully defined
• Mission risks are identified and viable
  mitigation plans are in place
• The envisioned mission design will fully satisfy
  those requirements
• The mission design is producible within imposed
  constraints and available cost and schedule
  resources.

10
Science Products for MDR (5/5)

• The following science products will have to be
  adequately mature at MDR
• Science objectives and priority
• Science/payload requirements on the mission, S/C
  and Mission Operations System
• Science program context
• Science investigations
• Science teams and management approach
• Science observing operations/modes including
  coordinated and cooperative data taking
• Science challenges
• Science data analysis and archive concept
• Science data return options, trade-offs and
  considerations
• Major open items and resolution plans and
  assessment

11
5. LIST/Project Interface and Interaction (1/1)

• Project needs to frequently interact with the
  LIST for
• Development of science requirements
• Project will solicit additional LIST inputs for
• Mission design and operations concepts
• Guidance of the technology development
• Instrument architecture capabilities
• Science data analysis architecture
• Science Management Plan
• Science products for the MDR
• Strategies on expanding LISA advocacy
• Need to develop processes to achieve the above
  objectives in a timely manner

12
Framework for Mission Requirements (1/3)

• Mission and Science Requirements cover a dominant
  aspect of the Mission Formulation
• A clear definition of requirements, minimum
  requirements and goals is necessary to avoid
  confusion

13
Framework for Mission Requirements (2/3)

• Baseline Requirement
• Specification of a condition, parameter, or
  capability with which the System Design must be
  compliant, verifiable, and have a demonstrated
  achievement during the mission
• Verified using some combination of the
  project-accepted verification methods
• These are typically Analysis, Test,
  Demonstration, and Inspection
• Minimum Requirement
• The minimum performance floor acceptable for
  maturing the mission
• Descopes, IF necessary, must meet these levels
• Minimum Requirements are not designed to, and
  therefore are not directly verified.
• Encompassed in the verification of baseline
  requirements
• Due to a descope, a miniumum requirement may be
  converted into a baseline requirement

14
Framework for Mission Requirements (3/3)

• Goal
• Nice-to-have capabilities, over and above the
  baseline requirements
• Do not drive mission design
• Project attempts a mission design that does not
  preclude achieving the goals
• Tracked so if resources/capabilities allow,
  better performance may be achieved
• Goals are not required to be verified, as there
  is no commitment by the project to meet them
• When possible, performance is reported against
  the goals based on analysis or extrapolation of
  test results
• When the stated performance drops below a goal,
  the project may choose to expend resources to
  improve the performance but the expenditure is
  not required

15
Technology Development Status NASA (1/5)

• NASA Technology Development Plan completed in
  February 2005
• Represents the technology development work that
  NASA has to do
• Represents a paradigm shift from earlier plans to
  conduct complete parallel efforts
• Plan proposes cooperative/coordinated efforts.
• Plan will save time and money but represents some
  increased risk.

16
Technology Development Status NASA (2/5)

• Technology development centered around two areas
• Inferferometry Measurement System (IMS)
• Disturbance Reduction System (DRS)
• Uses ITAT Reference Architectures and significant
  risk lists to help establish high level gates
• Gates are a metric to assess technology
  achievements and project readiness. Gates are
  based on risk and risk reduction
• Completion of gates required to transition to
  Implementation
• Established twelve high level gates
• Three Interferometry Measurement System
• Nine Disturbance Reduction System
• Identified significant milestones in the path of
  meeting the gate
• Identified and budgeted tasks required to meet
  the milestones and thus the gates

17
Technology Development Status NASA (3/5)

• Demonstrate with direct measurements of thrust,
  thrust noise, and key thruster operating
  parameters (beam voltage, beam current, thruster
  head temperature) that the microthruster control
  algorithms are correct and that the system
  (including PPU and DCIU) can meet the mission DRS
  requirements
• Thrust range from 4-30 ?N
• Thrust precision of lt 0.1 ?N over full range of
  operation
• Thrust noise in the LISA bandwidth (0.1 mHz 1
  Hz) lt 0.1 ?N/?Hz
• Component level validation (thruster head,
  micro-valve, electronics) is required for TRL 5,
  and a system level demonstration is required for
  TRL 6. In the case that a testbed capable of
  measuring thrust noise within the complete LISA
  bandwidth or on-orbit measurements are not
  available, validated thrust models based on key
  thruster operating parameters and direct thrust
  measurements can be used to show compliance.

Example Gate Trhuster Performance
18
Technology Development Status - ESA (4/5)

• ESA has started technology development activities
  targeted to LISA in 1988
• Activities cover basic technology in the
  following areas
• Gravitational sensor
• Interferometry
• Optical elements
• Phase measurement systems
• Micropropulsion
• Laser system
• Contracts are assigned to industry/institutes
  following a competitive tender procedure
• Most of the activities targeted to LISA
  Pathfinder are complete
• An update to the plan targeted to LISA will be
  produced in the frame of the Mission Formulation
• New activities are planned to be kicked-off in
  Q4-05 and Q1-06

19
Technology Development Status project (5/5)

• ESA and NASA have different Agency requirements
  on the assessment of the technology level of
  maturity
• The project will prepare a LISA Integrated
  Technology Development Plan (ITDP) that takes
  them into account
• The NASA plan constitutes the input to the ITDP
• ESA input is expected by October 2005, at the end
  of phase 1 of the Mission Formulation
• Plan to begin integrating the NASA and ESA
  technology development recommendations late in
  2005
• Share of responsibility may be reconsidered
  before start of implementation based on
  technology readiness

20
Role of the LISA project (NASA) in ST-7 (1/1)

• Develop a GRS only organization responsible for
  delivering GRS to ST7
• Determine the best way to integrate the GRS
  organization into the existing ST7 organization
• Assumptions/Guidelines
• LISA project delivers GRS to ST7 to become the
  NASA DRS system
• Funded through LISA from a specific account held
  at NASA HQ
• Managed by LISA project
• Separate activity from LISA technology and
  formulation development
• Strong insight between LISA and GRS Flight
  Experiment projects
• No change in the level 1 requirement for the GRS
  and the DRS
• LPF interface remains through ST-7