CRaTER Project Monthly Technical Progress and Schedule Status Report (NNG05EB92C DRD 20 & 21) April 2005

Transcription

1 CRaTER Project Monthly Technical Progress and Schedule Status Report (NNG05EB92C DRD 20 & 21) April 2005 Page 1 of 6

2 Table of Contents Project Scientist s Report... 3 Project Engineer s Report... 3 Mission Assurance Manager s Report... 4 Program Manager s Report... 4 Schedule Status... 4 Meetings & Telecoms... 4 Budget Status... 5 Risk Analysis... 6 Page 2 of 6

3 Project Scientist s Report The science team has been focused on trade studies in the instrument design that reflect the complete picture of the LRO spacecraft and mission and the comments from our peer reviewers transmitted during the debriefing on the CRaTER proposal. The three main issues we have been working on are the optimum telescope design for measuring energy deposition through the telescope, the properties of galactic cosmic rays and solar energetic particles, and the properties of alpha-radiation from the lunar surface. In order to study the optimum telescope design we have been running several numerical simulations of energetic particle propagation through different detector designs. Calculations using FLUKA and GEANT have been used to model the effects of straggling and secondary particle production in the detectors. Calculations in IDL and SRIM have been used to study the effects of shielding in improving the accuracy of the measurements. Our main findings are that two sections of TEP (tissue equivalent plastic) combined with six detectors are preferable to the original design of three TEP sections, that the two TEP sections should have different lengths, and that a small metal collar on the top of the instrument could significantly improve the quality of the measurements at lower energies. In terms of the properties of the energetic particles themselves, we have been studying the extreme solar event of January 2005, which produced one of the most intense solar energetic particle environments ever observed in space. We find that the rates of particles striking the detectors are consistent with telemetry limit imposed by the 1553 interface of 1250 events per second, and that the rate is far below that needed for us to be concerned about saturation effects in the detectors. Project Engineer s Report In early January we set up a CRaTER Engineering web page to consolidate our engineering documentation. Since it was very similar, we also quickly adapted the data ICD from SPIDR for the LRO mission so that the Project would have a feel for our flight data handling strategy. We attended the LRO instrument kick-off meeting at Goddard on January 12-14, presented the as-proposed concept of the CRaTER instrument, and learned about the current state of the spacecraft design. Power and mass appeared not to be a problem, though accommodation of the 60-degree full width field of view in both the zenith and nadir direction was clearly going to present challenges. Our data ICD was taken under advisement, and it was not immediately clear if our request for 100Kbps of telemetry bandwidth on the 1553 bus could be granted --switching over to SpaceWire was an alternative. Team building at Aerospace has been restricted by contract difficulties, so that only preliminary design of the silicon particle detectors and their associated electronics has been accomplished. Mechanical design of the telescope has not yet started. A preliminary design of the combined telescope/electronics box indicates that the asproposed volume and mass were not unreasonable, but a quick power calculation indicated that -- depending upon radiation-hardened part availability -- could turn out to Page 3 of 6

4 be a problem. That the science team has been doing trade studies, which may well reduce our telescope field-of-view, provides hope that our accommodation problems on the spacecraft will be relieved. Mission Assurance Manager s Report The draft Performance Assurance Implementation Plan (PAIP) dated 1/27/05 and draft Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) dated 2/11/05 have been reviewed. The MAR contains the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) which was has also been evaluated. The above documents were compared to the Requirements of the Proposal Information Package (PIP), Rev A. dated 8/18/04. Many major differences were noted and documented. Most notable were the added number of data items and plans. The BU-CSP PAIP has been started. This document includes Mission Assurance for BU/CSP, MIT/CSR, and the Aerospace Corporation. A new draft instrument PAIP was received from GSFC on 3/11/05. That newer draft PAIP is now being used for the BU/CSP PAIP. Tissue Equivalent Plastic (TEP a.k.a A150) is a major material in the CRaTER Telescope. This material is made by Standard Imaging Corporation and is identified by the product name of A150. They do not have a data sheet on A150 but will send us a list of ingredients, a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and a sample for testing. Diane Kolos, the Materials Laboratory manager at GSFC is interested in testing TEP. We have asked her to test for outgassing, offgassing, and flammability. TEP will not be used in a structural application, so we have not requested any physical testing at this time. Program Manager s Report The major programmatic events for the period involved setting up the various contracts for the project. The Schedule Status For Phase A/B/C_bridge, the milestone schedule is somewhat short, with the CRaTER Project currently supporting the LRO Project Schedule V0.5. No deviations from that schedule are currently anticipated. Meetings & Telecoms Weekly CRaTER project management meetings between the Principal Investigator, Project Scientist, Project Engineer and Project Manager were instituted for the project during this period and were held regularly. Weekly telecoms between the CRaTER project management team and NASA instrument management/systems engineering were initiated during this period and held regularly. Weekly telecoms between the CRaTER project management team and the rest of the CRaTER Co-Investigator team were initiated and held regularly. Bi-weekly participation by the CRaTER PI, the other LRO Instrument PIs and the LRO Project Scientist was initiated and held regularly. Page 4 of 6

5 The following meetings were/will be supported by the CRaTER Project Team: LRO Kick-off Meeting (Jan 12, 2005) Internal CRaTER Team Meeting 1 (Apr 13, 2005) Technical Interface Meeting with NASA (Apr 14, 2005) Mission Assurance Meeting with NASA (Apr 26,2005) Instrument Accommodation Review (Apr 28,2005) Internal CRaTER Team Meeting 2 (TBS) Instrument Preliminary Design Review (late June, ) LRO Preliminary Design Review (mid-late July, ) Internal CRaTER Team Meeting 3 (TBS) Budget Status The CRaTER Project was able to negotiate the prime contract during this period with NASA, as well as subcontract with MIT. The Aerospace and the University of Tennessee subcontracts are anticipated to be in place during the Actuals vs Budget next reporting period. $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Jan ,785 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Period Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Baseline Budget Reserves Actuals Since the original proposal, the major budget change has been in the area of transferring the Program Manager and Project Scientist budget from the B.U. prime contract to the MIT subcontract. While both the Project Manager and Project Scientist are affiliated with B.U., they will receive their CRaTER associated The CRaTER project is currently running significantly under budget as it tries to get to ramp up the engineering effort ($140.8K vs. $433.4K. Financial details can be found in the April 2005 submittal of the 533Q for the project. We were only partially successful in getting resources, particularly engineering, assigned to the project without the formal contracts/subcontracts in place. While there is still a certain amount of activity remaining getting the team in place, at least the team leads and top level work assignments are significantly in place. As it stands now, financial resources do not pose any problem for the CRaTER Project to get to the next major milestone (I-PDR). By the next status report, 1 Actual dates still to be confirmed Page 5 of 6

6 the dust on all the cumulative costs should of settled (At this point, the Aerospace precontract assessment is not complete). Risk Analysis At this point, there are no Red (nor yellow for that matter) class risks associated with the overall CRaTER project using the NASA standard likelihood/impact classification scheme. Currently, the highest level generic risk on the project concerns sole source EEE piece parts (such as: alerts show up on a part in the as built system or flight delivered semi-custom detectors are not acceptable). After PDR, we will be able to start to identify these parts and address them specifically piece by piece as we proceed to CDR. Also using the NASA classification scheme, we do not see any red or yellow risks associated with the requirements development process currently in process. While science and spacecraft requirements are still in a state of refinement, there is nothing that appears overly threatening at this point in the overall project. On the short term (i.e. getting thru I-PDR), the biggest challenge is getting the requirements/interfaces settled and the engineering team in place. It is felt, however, that reasonable progress is being made in this area. Page 6 of 6