THEMIS & RHESSI NRC Irvine 2/01/2005 RHESSI and THEMIS PI Mode Experience Feb 1 2005

THEMIS & RHESSI NRC Irvine 2/01/2005

RHESSI and THEMIS

PI Mode Experience Feb 1 2005


AGENDA

1:00 UCB Missions R. Lin, UCB Director

1:15 RHESSI R. Lin, PI, UCB

1:30 THEMIS V. Angelopoulos, PI, UCB

1:45 PI Mode Experience P. Harvey, PM, UCB


SPACE SCIENCES LABORATORYBackground• Initiated in 1958 by Drs. Teller and Seaborg• Multidisciplinary organization• Connecting campus research to space efforts• Facility opened in 1966• New facilities added in 1998Research Efforts Involving• Balloons• Sounding rockets• Satellite instruments & science complements• Complete satellites• Mission & Science Operations• Ground Station OperationsAgencies Involved• NASA, NSF, NSBF, USAF, DOE• ESA, ISAS, IKI, PSI, etc.• $50M/yr (>90% NASA, <10% other.)


Facilities

• 55000 sq. ft. Office and Laboratory Space

• Employing 420 Scientists, Engineers, Staff

• On-Site Machine Shop

• Clean Room Facilities to Class 100

• Thermal Vacuum Facilities up to 3m diameter

• Spacecraft Integration Facility

• 4-story High Bay

• Radiation Sources Laboratory

• Mission Operations Centers

• Science Operations Centers

• 11 Meter S-Band Satellite Antenna

• Secure High Speed Communications to NASA


Operational Flight InstrumentsRHESSIFASTIMAGE FUV, WICGALEX detectorsCHIPSPolar EFIWind 3DPCluster II EFW, CISMars Global Surveyor ERROCSAT 2 - ISUALUlysses LANFUSE detectorsSOHO UVCS & SUMER detectorsKITSAT SPEAR

Under DevelopmentHUBBLE - COSSTEREO – IMPACTTHEMIS


SSL PERSONNEL

107 Scientific Researchers

133 Professional/Technical/Support Staff

150 Graduate and Undergarduate Students

SPACE PHYSICS RESEARCH GROUP (136 total personnel)

46 Scientific Researchers

25 involved in Magnetospheric Physics

46 Engineering & Technical Staff

37 Graduate & Undergraduate Students


Operations Components• Mission Operations Center• Science Operations Center• 11-meter S-Band Antenna with X-band capability• High Speed Communications to NASA Ground Network• Network Security• Autonomous Operations Pass Supports Orbit Determination & Tracking Spacecraft Command & Control Emergency Response System Self Checking


FAST AURORAL SNAPSHOT

• Science Package Electric Field Instruments Particle Instruments Electronics• Mission Operations• Science Operations Launched on 21 Aug 1996Mission Continuing through 2005


Lunar Prospector (1st competed Discovery Mission)

PI Dr. Alan Binder

Magnetometer/Electron Reflectometer InstrumentDr. R. P. Lin


Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) MIDEX

PI Dr James Burch SWRI

Far UltraViolet (FUV) Imager Instrument Dr. Stephen Mende UCB-SSL

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/


RAMATY HIGH ENERGY SOLAR SPECTROSCOPIC IMAGER

RHESSI: A NASA Small Explorer (SMEX)PI: Prof. Robert P. Lin UCB-SSL• Project Management• Spacecraft Bus• Science Package Imager Spectrometer Electronics• Mission Operations• Science Operations• Ground Data Systems Launched February 5, 2002Mission continuing through 2006-7


Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer (CHIPS)A NASA University-Class Explorer (UNEX)

PI Dr. Mark Hurwitz UCB-SSL


TIME HISTORY OF EVENTS AND MACROSCALE INTERACTIONS DURING SUBSTORMS

THEMIS: A Middle Class Explorer (MIDEX#5)

PI: Dr. Vassilis Angelopoulos UCB-SSL• Project Management• Spacecraft Bus• Science Package• Mission Operations• Science Operations• Ground Data Systems Launch: October 19, 2006Nominal Lifetime: 2 years

Production Mode Development ofFlight Boards (Here: SST Front-End)


RHESSI Overview

Dr. Robert P. Lin

Principal Investigator

Space Sciences Laboratory

University of California, Berkeley



RHESSI Prime Responsibilities

UC Berkeley (PI institution) Germanium detectors & cryostat Instrument electronics Integration & Test Ground station & MOC/SOCGSFC Grids, CryocoolerPSI (Switzerland) Telescope & aspect system

Spectrum Astro

Spacecraft

A1309.013




RHESSI Imager - Top View

RHESSI Imager - Side View



RHESSI Detectors and Cryostat

SPACEFLIGHT NOWPosted: June 4, 2001

X-43A launch failure

Next Pegasus rocket launch delayed in X-43A aftermath

The High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, or HESSI satellite, was scheduled to rocket into space on Thursday aboard an air-launched Orbital Sciences Pegasus XL booster.


RHESSI Orbit (~600 km altitude)




23 July 2002 Flare


RHESSI: 23 July 2002 flare nuclear de-excitation lines (Smith et al. 2003)




Energetic Particles at the Sun:

2.2 MeV line flux >1380+-11 518+-84.4 MeV >91+-11 35+-72.2/4.4 ratio 15.2 14.8

Power law index 3.8 3.8Np (>30 MeV) >7.2x1033 2.7x1033

Solar Energetic Particles at 1 AU:

Power law index (integrated fluence) 3.4 3.4Np (>30 MeV) 1.8x1034 9.1x1032

RHESSI: Oct 28, 2003 Nov 2, 2003


RHESSI: Microflares fromActive Regions Krucker et al. 2002


RHESSI as a Polarimeter (20 – 100 keV)RHESSI as a Polarimeter (20 – 100 keV)

A small (3 cm diam by 3.5 cm high) cylinder of Be serves as a Compton scattering element.

The Ge detectors measure the distribution of the scattered radiation.

The rotation of the spacecraft rotation provides an effective method for fine sampling of the scatter distribution.


X4.8 Flare of 23-July-2002X4.8 Flare of 23-July-2002

20 - 40 keV Polarization

6000

4000

2000

0

Counts

360°300°240°180°120°60°0°

Azimuthal Scatter Angle

FLR2072301 : 20 - 40 keV

µfit = 0.11µ100 0.55

š 20%

6000

4000

2000

0

Counts

360°300°240°180°120°60°0°

Azimuthal Scatter Angle

FLR2072301 : 20 - 40 keV

µfit = 0.11µ100 0.55

š 20%

Flare location : S13E72

≈ 20% ≈72° ± 5°





RHESSI X-ray imaging during HXR peak of 20 Jan 05 X7 flare:


RHESSI Mission Overview

Peter Harvey

Project Manager




RAMATY HIGH ENERGY SOLAR SPECTROSCOPIC IMAGER (RHESSI)

PurposeTo understand particle acceleration andexplosive energy release in the magnetized plasmas at the Sun.

Capabilities•Will provide the first hard X-ray imaging spectroscopy of the Sun;•Will provide the first high-resolution spectroscopy of solar -ray lines;•Will provide the first Solar imaging above 100 keV;•Will provide the first imaging of solar -ray lines.

Collaborating Institutions•University of California (UCB,UCLA)•Goddard Space Flight Center•Paul Scherrer Institute (Switzerland)•Spectrum Astro Incorporated •Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Laboratory •Jet Propulsion Laboratory•Montana State University•University of Alabama at Huntsville•Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm.(NOAA)•Institute of Astronomy ETHZ in Switzerland•University of Glasgow, Scotland, •National Astronomical Observatory, Japan•Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, France

RHESSI: Purpose and Team


Launch to Orbit Orbit : 600 km CircularInclination: 38 degreesOrbit Period: 96 minutesS/C Attitude: Sun Pointed, Spin StabilizedS/C Spin Rate: 12-15 rpm

Operations

Phases: Launch and Early Orbit Checkout (30 days) Minimum Mission Operations (6 months) Baseline Operations (18 months) Crab Observations (1 week each July) Anneal Period (1 week every 2 years)

RHESSI: MISSION PARAMETERS


• PI Mode1

PI Team Provides Space, Ground and Data Analysis SegmentsPI Team Provides Cost, Schedule, Performance Assurance Management

• Launch Vehicle•Vehicle : "SELVS II" ( Pegasus XL ) selected after HESSI CDR.

• Cost and Schedule CapsIncludes Spacecraft, Ground and Data Analysis (Phases A through E)Launch no later than 3 years from Contract Start.Project terminated if not launched on time or if cost to complete exceeds cap.

• Resulting Implementation StrategyDesign Using Off the Shelf Items as much as possibleLimit OptimizationHold Wide Margins

[1] Not PI Mode as of 5/2000.

RHESSI: KEY PROGRAMMATIC ASPECTS


Explorers Office Frank Snow, Mission Mgr


DOE ( LBNL )Detectors

DOE ( LBNL )Detectors

TecometGrids

TecometGridsMontana State Univ

Ground CoordinationMontana State Univ

Ground Coordination

vanBeek ConsultancyGrids

vanBeek ConsultancyGrids

Spectrum AstroSpacecraft Bus

Spectrum AstroSpacecraft Bus

HESSI Organization ChartMajor Subcontracts & Suppliers

U.C. BerkeleyRobert Lin, PI

Peter Harvey, Project Manager

U.C. BerkeleyRobert Lin, PI

Peter Harvey, Project Manager

KSCLaunch VehicleManagement

Ground BasedObservatoriesGround BasedObservatories

GSFCGrid Processing, Cooler

Brian Dennis, co-I

GSFCGrid Processing, Cooler

Brian Dennis, co-I

Paul Scherrer InstituteImaging Systems

Paul Scherrer InstituteImaging Systems

JPLGridsJPLGrids

EMP / Allied SignalGround Antenna

EMP / Allied SignalGround Antenna

EG&G OrtecGermanium Crystals

EG&G OrtecGermanium Crystals

OSCPegasus XL

OSCPegasus XL

Hernandez Eng.Safety

Hernandez Eng.Safety

JPLEnvironmental Tests

JPLEnvironmental Tests

SpaceWorksSpacecraft Support

SpaceWorksSpacecraft Support

RHESSI: ORGANIZATION


HESSI ProjectHESSI Project

1.1 ManagementPeter Harvey

1.1 ManagementPeter Harvey

1.2 ScienceDr. Robert Lin

1.2 ScienceDr. Robert Lin

1.3 Systems EngineeringDavid Curtis

1.3 Systems EngineeringDavid Curtis

2. Spacecraft Bus2. Spacecraft Bus 3. InstrumentSubsystems

3. InstrumentSubsystems

4. Mission I&T4. Mission I&T 5. Ground Systems

5. Ground Systems

3.1 ImagerAlex Zehnder

3.1 ImagerAlex Zehnder

3.2 SpectrometerPaul Turin

3.2 SpectrometerPaul Turin

3.3 IDPUDavid Curtis

3.3 IDPUDavid Curtis

4.1 Spacecraft I&TRick Sterling

4.1 Spacecraft I&TRick Sterling

4.2 Operations PreparationsChris Smith

4.2 Operations PreparationsChris Smith

1. Management,Science,

Systems Eng.


Systems Eng.

2.1 Management Rick Wanner2.1 Management Rick Wanner

2.2 Spacecraft BusJohn Jordan

2.2 Spacecraft BusJohn Jordan

2.3 Bus I&TJeff Jackson

2.3 Bus I&TJeff Jackson

HESSI Work Breakdown Structure (Phase D2)

5.1 SOCTim Quinn

5.1 SOCTim Quinn

5.2 MOC/Ground Antenna and Site

Manfred Bester

5.2 MOC/Ground Antenna and Site

Manfred Bester

RHESSI: WBS


ID Task Name

1 Requirements Review

2 Concept Review

3 Pre-Preliminary Design Review

4 Preliminary Design Review

5 Confirmation Review

6 Critical Design Review

7 L-1 Year Review

8 Pre-Environmental Review

9 Recovery Review 1

10 Reconfirmation Assessment Review

11 ReConfirmation Readiness Review

12 Reconfirmation Review

13 Red Team Review I

14 Pre Environmental Review 2

15 Pre Ship Review

16 Red Team Review II

17 Phase A Concept

18 Phase B Design

19 Phase C Fabrication

20 Phase D Integration

21 Phase D Qual-to-Mishap

22 Phase D2 Recovery & ReIntegration

23 Phase D2 Qual (JPL)

24 Phase D2 Final Prep (VAFB 836)

25 Phase D2 LV Processing (VAFB 1555)

12/15

2/2

6/24

7/29

8/17

11/19

6/18

2/29

4/4

5/16

6/29

8/4

10/24

10/30

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

95%

0

N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J1998 1999 2000 20

ID Task Name

1 Requirements Review

2 Concept Review

3 Pre-Preliminary Design Review

4 Preliminary Design Review

5 Confirmation Review

6 Critical Design Review

7 L-1 Year Review

8 Pre-Environmental Review

9 Recovery Review 1

10 Reconfirmation Assessment Review

11 ReConfirmation Readiness Review

12 Reconfirmation Review

13 Red Team Review I

14 Pre Environmental Review 2

15 Pre Ship Review

16 Red Team Review II

17 Phase A Concept

18 Phase B Design

19 Phase C Fabrication

20 Phase D Integration

21 Phase D Qual-to-Mishap

22 Phase D2 Recovery & ReIntegration

23 Phase D2 Qual (JPL)

24 Phase D2 Final Prep (VAFB 836)

25 Phase D2 LV Processing (VAFB 1555)

12/15

2/2

6/24

7/29

8/17

11/19

6/18

2/29

4/4

5/16

6/29

8/4

10/24

10/30

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

95%

0

N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J1998 1999 2000 20

SCHEDULE MANAGEMENTPersonnel Required : 1 FTE at Project Level; 1/2 FTE at S/C, 1/2 at GSFC, 1/2 at PSI.Integrated at Project Level. All Project98.

RHESSI: SCHEDULE


THEMIS Overview

Dr. Vassilis Angelopoulos

Principal Investigator




TIME HISTORY OF EVENTS AND MACROSCALE

INTERACTIONS DURING SUBSTORMS (THEMIS)

RESOLVING THE PHYSICS OF ONSET AND EVOLUTION OF SUBSTORMS

Science Team

Principal InvestigatorVassilis Angelopoulos, UCB

EPO LeadNahide Craig, UCB

Program ManagerPeter Harvey, UCB

Industrial PartnerSWALES Aerospace, Inc., Beltsville MD


Primary:“How do substorms operate?”– One of the oldest and most important

questions in Geophysics– A turning point in our understanding of the

dynamic magnetosphere

First bonus science:“What accelerates storm-time ‘killer’ electrons?”– A significant contribution to space weather science

Second bonus science:“What controls efficiency of solar wind – magnetosphere coupling?”– Provides global context of

Solar Wind – Magnetosphere interaction

THEMIS: Science Goals

AuroraCurrent disruption

Reconnection


Mission Elements

Probe conjunctions along Sun-Earth line recur once per 4 days over North America.

Ground based observatories completely cover North American sector; can

determine auroral breakup within 1-5s …

… while THEMIS’s space-based probes determine onset of Current Disruption and

Reconnection each within <10s.

: Ground Based Observatory


THEMIS Mission Overview

Peter R. Harvey

Project Manager




Instrument Payload


Probe Bus Design

Power positive in all attitudes with instruments off (launch, safe hold modes)

Passive thermal design using MLI and thermostatically controlled heaters tolerant of longest shadows (3 hours)

– Spin stabilized probes orbit within 13° of ecliptic plane have inherently stable thermal environment

S-Band communication system always in view of earth every orbit at nominal attitude. In view for greatest part of orbit in any attitude

Passive spin stability achieved in all nominal and off-nominal conditions

Monoprop blow down RCS (propulsion) system is self balancing on orbit


Standard Delta 10 ft. Fairing Static Envelope

3712 PAF

Probe Carrier Assembly (PCA = 5 Probes + Probe Carrier) on L/V

Probe Carrier Assembly (PCA = 5 Probes + Probe Carrier) on L/V

THEMIS Launch Configuration

THEMIS Launch Configuration

Probe Carrier Assembly (PCA) on Delta 3rd StageProbe Carrier Assembly (PCA) on Delta 3rd Stage

Launch Configuration

Dedicated launch accommodated within standard Delta 7925-10 vehicle configuration and services

10’ Composite Fairing required to accommodate five Probes on the Probe Carrier in the “Wedding Cake” configuration

PC stays attached to Delta 3rd stage after probe dispense

Each probe dispense from the PCA is coordinated with but independent of the other probes

No single probe anomaly precludes dispense of remaining probes

Star 48 3rd Stage


Ground System Block Diagram


Programmatic Overview

Programmatic Overview– PI Mode

PI Team Provides Space, Ground, Data SegmentsPI Team Provides Cost, Schedule, Performance AssurancePI Team Provides Education/Public Outreach

– Cost and Schedule CapsSingle Cost Cap for the Mission Launch no later than March 2007

– Performance AssuranceMIDEX Quality Requirements

Implementation StrategyUse Heritage InstrumentationCoordinate Common Buy Parts Keep Probe/Probe Carrier Simple and Robust


Organization



U.Colo/LASPBob Ergun

U.Colo/LASPBob Ergun

TU-BSUli Auster

TU-BSUli Auster

Swales AerospaceMike Cully

Swales AerospaceMike Cully

THEMIS Organization ChartSubcontracts/Agreements

Phases BCD

U.C. BerkeleyVassilis Angelopoulos, PI

Peter Harvey, PM

U.C. BerkeleyVassilis Angelopoulos, PI

Peter Harvey, PM

KSCGarrett Skrobot,

Mission Integ Mgr

KSCGarrett Skrobot,

Mission Integ Mgr

CETPAlain Roux

B. De la Porte

CETPAlain Roux

B. De la Porte

GSFC/GNCDKaren Richon

GSFC/GNCDKaren Richon

UCLAChris Russell

UCLAChris Russell

Univ of CalgaryEric Donovan

Univ of CalgaryEric Donovan

Univ of AlbertaJ. Samson

Univ of AlbertaJ. Samson

IWFWerner Magnes

IWFWerner Magnes


Organization

THEMIS ProjectTHEMIS Project

1.1 Management1.1 Management

1.2 Science1.2 Science

1.3 Systems Engineering

1.3 Systems Engineering

2. SpaceSegment

Development

2. SpaceSegment

Development

3. GroundSegment

Development

3. GroundSegment

Development

4. Mission Ops& Data Analysis4. Mission Ops

& Data Analysis5. Education &

Public Outreach5. Education &

Public Outreach

3.1 Mission Operations Center

3.1 Mission Operations Center

3.2 Science Operations Center

3.2 Science Operations Center

3.3 Ground Based

Observatories

3.3 Ground Based

Observatories

4.1 Mission Operations4.1 Mission Operations

4.2 Data Analysis4.2 Data Analysis


Systems Eng.


Systems Eng.

2.1 Instruments2.1 Instruments

2.2 Spacecraft2.2 Spacecraft

THEMIS Work Breakdown Structure


Organization

Management, Science and Systems Engineering

Management, Science and Systems Engineering

Management SupportK. Harps FinancesM. Larson PurchasingM. Giordano DocumentationD. Meilhan SchedulingA. Shutkin Administration

Management SupportK. Harps FinancesM. Larson PurchasingM. Giordano DocumentationD. Meilhan SchedulingA. Shutkin Administration

UCB Sponsored ProjectsD. Weldon ContractingUCB Sponsored ProjectsD. Weldon Contracting

Systems Engineering

Ellen Taylor

Systems Engineering

Ellen Taylor

ScienceV. Angelopoulos

ScienceV. Angelopoulos

Science SupportBonnell, JohnCarlson, ChuckDelory, GregoryFrey, HaraldHull, ArtLarson, DavinLin, RobertMende, StevenMoreau, ThomasMozer, ForrestParks, GeorgePeticolas, LauraPhan, TaiTemerin, Michael

Science SupportBonnell, JohnCarlson, ChuckDelory, GregoryFrey, HaraldHull, ArtLarson, DavinLin, RobertMende, StevenMoreau, ThomasMozer, ForrestParks, GeorgePeticolas, LauraPhan, TaiTemerin, Michael

Program Management

Peter Harvey

Program Management

Peter Harvey

Electrical Ellen Taylor

Electrical Ellen Taylor

Mechanical /ThermalPaul Turin

Chris Smith

Mechanical /ThermalPaul Turin

Chris Smith

EMC/ESC/MAGRobert Snare (UCLA)

EMC/ESC/MAGRobert Snare (UCLA)

THEMIS WBS 1.0

Facility SupportJ. Cooks ContractsJ. Keenan PurchasingG. Davis Accounting J. Williams TravelJ. Jones Personnel

Facility SupportJ. Cooks ContractsJ. Keenan PurchasingG. Davis Accounting J. Williams TravelJ. Jones Personnel Quality & Safety

Ron JacksonQuality & Safety

Ron Jackson

PartsJorg Fischer

PartsJorg Fischer


Organization

InstrumentsInstruments

Electric Field Instrument

(EFI)

Electric Field Instrument

(EFI)

ElectroStaticAnalyser

(ESA)

ElectroStaticAnalyser

(ESA)

Solid StateTelescope

(SST)

Solid StateTelescope

(SST)

InstrumentI&T

Rick Sterling

InstrumentI&T

Rick Sterling

InstrumentData Processor

Unit (IDPU)

InstrumentData Processor

Unit (IDPU)

THEMIS WBS 2.1

FluxgateMag

(FGM)

FluxgateMag

(FGM)

Search CoilMag

(SCM)

Search CoilMag

(SCM)

Forrest MozerJohn BonnellGreg DeloryArt HullBill DonakowskiGreg DaltonRobert DuckMark PankowDan SchickeleStu HarrisHilary Richard

Forrest MozerJohn BonnellGreg DeloryArt HullBill DonakowskiGreg DaltonRobert DuckMark PankowDan SchickeleStu HarrisHilary Richard

Robert AbiadPeter BergHeath BerschDorothy GordonFrank HarveySelda HeavnerJim LewisJeanine PottsChris ScholzKathy Walden

Robert AbiadPeter BergHeath BerschDorothy GordonFrank HarveySelda HeavnerJim LewisJeanine PottsChris ScholzKathy Walden

Charles CarlsonM. MarckwardtBill ElliottRon Herman

Charles CarlsonM. MarckwardtBill ElliottRon Herman

Robert LinDavin LarsonRon CanarioRobert LeeT. Moreau

Robert LinDavin LarsonRon CanarioRobert LeeT. Moreau

Hari DharanY. KimTien TanBill Tyler

Hari DharanY. KimTien TanBill Tyler

TUBS/IWFUli AusterK.H. GlassmeierW. Magnes

TUBS/IWFUli AusterK.H. GlassmeierW. Magnes

CETPAlain RouxBertran de la PorteOlivier Le ContelChristophe CoillotAbdel Bouabdellah

CETPAlain RouxBertran de la PorteOlivier Le ContelChristophe CoillotAbdel Bouabdellah

LASPRobert ErgunAref NammariKen StevensJim Westfall

LASPRobert ErgunAref NammariKen StevensJim Westfall

MagBoomsMag

Booms


Organization

Ground SegmentGround Segment

Mission Ops Science Ops

(Mission Planning)

Mission Ops Science Ops

(Mission Planning)

THEMIS WBS 3

Ground Based ObservatoriesGround Based Observatories

Manfred BesterMark LewisTim QuinnSabine FreyTai PhanJohn BonnellLaura Peticolas

Manfred BesterMark LewisTim QuinnSabine FreyTai PhanJohn BonnellLaura Peticolas

Stephen MendeStu HarrisSteve GellerHarald Frey

Stephen MendeStu HarrisSteve GellerHarald Frey

UCLAChris RussellJoe MeansDave Pierce

UCLAChris RussellJoe MeansDave Pierce

All Sky ImagersAll Sky Imagers

Ground Magnetometers

Ground Magnetometers

Fielding & Operation

(UC&UA)

Fielding & Operation

(UC&UA)

UCEric DonovanUCEric Donovan

GSFC/GCNDDavid SibeckMark BeckmanBob DeFazioDavid FoltaRick Harman

GSFC/GCNDDavid SibeckMark BeckmanBob DeFazioDavid FoltaRick Harman

UAJ. SamsonUAJ. Samson


Top Level Schedule (from PDR)

CY 2005MILESTONES

CY 2004CY 2003

THEMIS TOP LEVEL SCHEDULE STATUS AS OF: 11/06/03

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER MISSION MGR. : FRANK SNOW

1

MAJOR REVIEWS

IDPU DEVELOPMENT

IDPU ETU DESIGN, FAB, I&T & FLIGHT

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O

CY 2006

2 EFI SPB / AXB DEVELOPMENT

EFI SPB & AXB DESIGN, FAB, I&T

3 ESA DEVELOPMENT

ESA ETU DESIGN, FAB, I&T & FLIGHT

4 SST DEVELOPMENT

SST ETU DESIGN, FAB, I&T & FLIGHT

5 FGM DEVELOPMENT

6 SCM DEVELOPMENT

SCM EM DESIGN, FAB, I&T & FLIGHT

8

INSTRUMENT I&T

ETU & FLIGHT 1 - 5 INTEGRATION & TEST

DSG COMPL..

DSG COMPL.

FLT I&T COMPL

BOX ASSY

ETU I&TDSG COMPL.

ETU FAB

ETU TESTS

DSG COMPL.ETU FAB

ETU I&T

FLT 1-6 FAB COMPL.

FLT I&T COMPL

ETU PROC/FAB

FGE ETU I&T

FLT 1-5 FGE FAB & TEST FLT I&T COMPL

FLT I&T COMPL

ETU I&T

ETU FAB

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

2-31

11/30

FGM ETU DESIGN, FAB, I&T & FLIGHT

8/184/164/0112/08

FLT I&T COMPL

DSG COMPL..

10/1211/26

11/027/063/021/0612/16

10/185/3112/299/29

10/259/244/161/21

1/26 7/26

FLT 1-2

8/06 8/249/10

9/2810/15

1 2 3 4 5

7/13 7/288/04

8/11

1 2 3 4 5

3/052/27

7/21

6/08

1

9/287/06 8/03 8/31

2 3 4 5

FLT I&T COMPL4/30

H/W FAB

6/25 8/27

FLT ASSY 1-6

1/0612/23

11/3011/16 1/20

10/26

9

PROBE CARRIER

PROBE CARRIER DESIGN, FAB, TEST

12

PROBE CARRIER ASSY I & T

INTEGRATION & ENVIRINMENTAL TESTS

13

LAUNCH OPERATIONS

LAUNCH PROCESSING/LAUNCH

DSG & PROCURE FAB COMPL..

I&T COMPLETE

10

SPACECRAFT PROBESLONG LEAD PROCUREMENT, SUBSYSTEM DESIGN, FAB & BUS I&T

F1 F2-3 F4 F5

8/036/242/16 8/10

9/158/096/2711

PROBE & INSTRUMENT I&T

PROBE I&T with INSTRUMENTS F1 F2-3 F4 F5

11/2310/198/25 12/05

3/15

8/21

PROBE F1 SLACK (60 days)

PDR.

11/12-14CDR.

4/06-07

PROBE F5SLACK (40 days)

SRR.

7/16

7 SCM/FGM BOOM DEVELOPMENT

SCM EM DESIGN, FAB, I&T & FLIGHT

DSG COMPL..

FLT I&T COMPL

FAB HINGES & TUBES 41

6/1412/10 8/24

2 3 5 6

SHIP & LAUNCH PROCESSING

INSTRUMENT DELIVERY TO SWALES

6/296/06

5/044/06

3/10

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

MCRR12/08-09

CONF. REV (HQ)

1/15

5/11 10/05

F5 SLACK (120 days)F1 SLACK (95 days)

6

6

F1 SLACK (40 days)F5 SLACK (64 days)

9/285/04

6

4-6

3-5

1-6

1/22

DSG COMPL..

8/319/07

9/149/21

9/28

ETU TEST

2/12

2/23

ETU TEST (GERM.)

3/08

ETU I&T

PROBE CARRIER SLACK (60 days)

FLT 1-6 FAB COMPL.

7/30

ETU I&T

7/13

MISSION SLACK (60 days)

5/25

INSTRUMENT SLACK --

PROBE CARRIER & BUS SLACK

MISSION SLACK --

Slack Legend

--

1 2 3 4 5 6

9/289/14

8/318/17 10/12

8/03

14

FLIGHT PLATFORM & HARNESS FLT HARNESS COMPL


PI Mode Experience

Peter R. Harvey

Project Manager




Tasks

(1) examine and assess the selection process and objectives for PI-led missions, including the balance between science objectives and cost and management criteria,

(2) examine the roles, relationships, and authority among members of the PI-team (e.g., PI, university, industry, field center) in past missions,

(3) identify lessons learned from the scientific and technical performance of previous PI-led missions,

(4) investigate and analyze the factors contributing to cost overruns of missions, including any requirements that are imposed on PI-led projects during their development,

(5) identify opportunities for knowledge transfer to new PIs and sustained technical management experience throughout the program, and

(6) identify lessons learned and recommend practices and incentives for improving the overall conduct of future PI-led missions.

SSB Subcommittee Tasks


Questions

1. Please list those problems and challenges that were distinct from a program-led mission that you have faced/are facing in your effort to accomplish your proposed PI-led project. What is the status of each or what was the outcome?

2. What were the responsibilities of the program manager, project manager, and PI?

3. Comments on communications and interactions among the PI, PM (project manager), NASA, industry, and other key players?

4. What aspects of the PI program do you think facilitated your work and getting the mission done on time and on budget, and what do you consider the most significant obstacles in achieving mission success?

5. What changes would you make to the way PI-led missions are defined and/or executed to improve them at the proposal, development, and/or implementation phases;

6. Please comment on lessons learned from your experience managing a PI mission(s).

7. Would you do it again, why or why not?

SSB Subcommittee Questions


• PI mode is cost-capped but PL mode is not operating under strict cost cap.

– Problems and challenges same in both, but solutions are different

– PI mode provides flexibility not available in PL mode; this helps both science and costs

RHESSI ExamplesPL mode view PI mode view

HESSI cryocooler challenging Buy expensive ($$) Buy many and test

Support with in-house development

JPL vibration table broke HESSI Major overrun ($$) SAI w/ UCB joint rebuilt

I&T at UCB

HESSI launch before solar max When we can (sci) Can do now: simplify spacecraft

HESSI Grids Buy one and monitor ($$) Parallel path

HESSI Operations expensive OK, nominal ($$) Build UCB antenna, use automation

Q1. PI vs. PL mode:Problems and Challenges


THEMIS ExamplesPL mode view PI mode view

THEMIS SST too noisy Relax requirements (SCI) Develop in-house

THEMIS schedule risk Delay launch ($$, SCI) Change I&T venue (org-chart)

THEMIS mass growth Send help ($$) or accept (sci) Instruments accommodate a new tank

THEMIS thermal/power Restrict s/c attitudes (risk) Instrument-bus personnel work together

THEMIS cost projection OK, it was tough to do ($$) Reorganize team to recover costs

IIRT reports to center Natural Driven not by cost/schedule but only risk

Authority over PM, PL, PI, and Science

Defies PI mode – and notion of cost cap

Extra reviews (ITA, Code500) Bring them on Same as above

Q1. PI vs. PL mode:Problems and Challenges


Status and Outcome: All problems retired successfully due to flexibility of the PI mode, relative to PL mode

Notable positive attributes of PI mode (should be strengthened):One contract and a clear line of authority to PI-PM allows team to:

• Trade effectively between science, mission design, schedule and cost

• Exercise parallel paths and implement at critical junctures

• Re-organize team efficiently when in trouble

• Work as a single-team with instruments accommodating spacecraft and vice-versa

Technically experienced PI institution ensures science goals are met at cost by having:

• Good technical insight into mission elements and capability to determine risks early

• Capability to line-up in-house or new partner solutions when critical to mission success

Notable risks of PI mode as implemented currentlyLine of authority to PI-PM that goes with responsibility to stay on cost is threatened:

• IIRT, AETD, Code 500, ITA (technical reviews) which have power over PI-PM

Q1. PI vs. PL mode:Problem Status and Outcome


AO-01-OSS-03 (Same for RHESSI and THEMIS)

•Explorer program:•Designed to utilize streamlined and efficient management approaches•Seeks PIs who commit to cost limits, control business and technical processes

•The responsibility for implementing a selected investigation rests with the Principal Investigator (PI) and the investigation team, which will have a large degree of freedom with which to accomplish its proposed objectives with appropriate NASA oversight to ensure mission success.

•GSFC is responsible for NASA's fiduciary responsibility to ensure that Explorer missions are achieved in compliance with the cost, schedule, performance, reliability, and safety requirements committed to by the PI. GSFC's involvement in this role may vary from mission to mission, depending on the implementing organization and other programmatic considerations.

Q2. Responsibilities (Explorer AO)


THEMIS selection letterMarch 22, 2003.From: AA for Space ScienceTo: THEMIS PI

“The Explorer Program Office, located at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, is responsible for overall management of the Explorer program, while explorer program definition and project selection remain at NASA Headquarters. For your investigation, project management is assigned to the University of California at Berkeley as outlined in your proposal. The project will be required to regularly report status to the Explorer Program Office and to the GSFC Program Management Council (PMC).”

Q2. Responsibilities at THEMIS CSRplan review, THEMIS selection (2003)


ResponsibilitiesMission Manager (Frank Snow, GSFC)• Works with KSC for Launch Vehicle, Launch Services• Works with HQ for ODA and International Agreements, Status• Works with GSFC engineering for variety of support items• Works with JPL for Environmental Test Finances

Project Manager (Peter Harvey, UCB)• Works with S/C Contractor • Works with Instrument developers• Works with Ground Based Observatory developers• Works with Ground Station Developer (RHESSI)

Principal Investigators (Robert Lin, Vassilis Angelopoulos, UCB)• Works with Science Team to define Measurement Requirements• Works with Operations Team to define Mission Profile• Works with Instrument Teams to detail capabilities

Q2. THEMIS Roles and Responsibilities


Sets Explorer Guidelines,(based on GSFC practices),reports to GPMC and HQEnsures adherence to margins,resources and requirements committed to by PI (e.g., INST-001). If margins are threatened, GSFC recommends action, offers resources, takes on more active role in technical decisions and resource management.

Review teams:Peer, IIRT

Q2. THEMIS proposed authority lines

IIRT (formal): Ensures, for MM, technical,schedule and cost margins are met. Recommendsbut does not enforce actions to PM.An asset for both MM and PM.Disposition of actions within PM authority.

Peer (informal): Ferrets out issues before theybecome problems. Disposition within subsystem.Ultimate closure of issues by PM.

Day-to-day program managementfor the PI, within allocated resources.Science/Technical decisions involvePI. Reports resource trends and marginsto PI and Explorers office.

Responsibility and authority to conductinvestigation withinproposed resources.Delegates daily management to PM.Reports to GSFC (resource and sciencemargins) and HQ (decisions that affect L1).


•THEMIS Confirmation Letter,May 4, 2004From: AA for Space Science, Ed WeilerTo: GSFC Director, Al Diaz

“Based on the THEMIS project’s presentation on April 22, 2004, to the Enterprise Program Management Council, I approve THEMIS to proceed into mission implementation.

…This is a cost-capped mission requiring tight control in order to maintain

cost and international schedule commitments for launch in October 2006. The project in conjunction with the Explorer Program Office and GSFC’s engineering directorate shall provide status on the development and conduct schedule reviews of the spacecraft every 2 months. This oversight will serve to facilitate early detection and correction of problems thereby improving mission success.”

Q2. Responsibilitiesat THEMIS confirmation (May 4, 2004)


Q2. THEMIS actual authority linessince confirmation (2004+)

SMO office

UCBPI, PM, MSE…

Science, Resource, Costor Subsystem (Swales, Instr.)

Explorers OfficeMM, OM, other

IIRT

Peer ReviewPanel

GPMC

GSFC Director

HQ

GSFC Code 500

Engr Review Team

RAO

ITA


Reason for change:GSFC is told by HQ that the it has responsibility for project success. Therefore, it is natural that GSFC will assume the authority to ensure mission success, treating THEMIS as any GSFC mission, implemented in accordance with its own management practices and heritage.

Effects:• Mitigation plans require review and approval if not proposed in CSR

• Organization changes take a long time to make and are perceived risky

• GSFC involved with subsystems•Involvement often construed as direction•GSFC a stake-holder in status quo, reluctance towards alternate paths

• GPMC using own PL-mode management practices and heritage• Cost adherence no longer a priority (HQ picked mission!)• Risk-adversity addressed thru formal review channels drives decisions• Resources and trades discussed openly with subs, outside of PI sphere

Q2. Line of authority evolution:reason for PI mode change and effects


Practical Resolution:

• Constant, open, direct communications between PI-PM and Explorers office

• Amicable working relationship and capable team members

• Strong UCB ties with Explorers and GSFC allow efficient interaction

Q2. Line of authority evolution:day-to-day implementation


Q2. Line of authority evolutionrisks and recommendations

Risks:

• Possible misunderstanding of sub-contractors• Line of authority confused• Top-down decisions may risk science• Bottom-up decisions take long time to review and implement (inefficient)• Management practices at UCB and GSFC different• Who is committed to cost (PI, GSFC, both)? Unclear HQ guidance.• Who is responsible for science adherence? Unclear HQ guidance.

Recommendation:

• Authority and responsibility must lie at the same place• That place should be same for technical resources and science• The appropriate place is where the science is conducted unless delegated• PI flexibility to trade science, cost and technical resources depends on that


Q3. Communications

Obstacles to WorkTeaming Arrangements UCB was and is Prime on RHESSI and THEMIS. Spectrum Astro / Swales Aerospace are the Spacecraft Subcontractors In Both Projects, GSFC Generally Ignores Relationship between UCB and S/C GSFC Review Teams & Engineers Often Direct Effort at S/C Contractor S/C Contractor Uses This to Explain Cost Overruns

NASA GSFC

UCB

S/CContractor

Contractual Arrangement

NASA GSFC

UCB S/C Contractor

Effective Arrangement


Q3. Communications

Facilitators to Efficient CommunicationsHow PI deals with current situation (I.e., effective PI mode arrangement)

Recognize GSFC holds the contract and go with the flow

Emphasize team-effort and strategic (as opposed to tactical) success

Agree with s/c contractor and GSFC on “terms of engagement” (even if moot point)

Information is key: obtain from both GSFC and subcontractors

Extract information when not provided, utilize agreement above

Open and honest communication between PI-PM and MM (parallel paths, costs, and outlook)

Pick main battles where it matters: on technical and science issues

Call out and tabulate out-of-scope items; insist only on heavy-hitters

Recognize that Explorers Program is on the same boat, change is coming from further above !


Q4. PI Mode Aspects

Aspects Facilitating WorkFlexibility in implementing technical and organizational workarounds

• Full trade space at the disposal of science under cost • Parallel paths available even though not called out at proposal

Direct Involvement of PI with Spacecraft & Instrument Developers• Instruments Have Been Defined Well and Early• Full Authority to Improve Spacecraft Design

Obstacles to WorkGPMC and Explorers office assuming more direct role in management

• Have different management style more in line with PL mode (not capped)

NASA IIRT• Action Items Not Constrained by Cost or Schedule

ITAR• NASA Declines to Provide Interface to State Dept for PI• University Pressures Team to Steer Clear of ITAR required activities• Project Has to Work Around ITAR Rules (Change Flow, Personnel, etc)


Q5. PI Mode Improvements, #1

PI Mode Definition• Recognize that under GSFC management, PI mode under cost cap a challenge

• Mission Can Be PI Mode, or GSFC Mode (=PL Mode), but Not Both• Unless GSFC is the proposing PI institution

• HQ must take responsibility for PI mode mission selection. Not GSFC.

• HQ must clarify that PI institution has the responsibility and authority:• Authority and responsibility for both science and implementation must be

at same place, and this should be the place committed to deliver on cost

• Place triggers for GSFC involvement in management• If cost to complete or technical resources are threatened

• GSFC should ensure commitments by PI institution are met• Ensures science and L1 commitments are on track• Informs HQ of progress and projections• Ensures processes and parts are in line with NASA expectations• A resource for PI institution to get back on track if problems arise


Phase A

•Make Phase A Non-Competitive

•Allows Project to Develop Team Members

•Allows Team to Fully Explore (Detail) Cost Estimate

•HESSI Cost was Estimated Better than THEMIS

Implementation

•Give PI Authority over the Project

•Do not Change Rules-of-the-Road Mid-Course

•Remove IIRT or Have it Report to the PI

•Remove the Mission Signoff Requirement from GSFC

Development

•Discourage Developments During a Project

•Fund Development Efforts for Future Projects.

Q5. PI Mode Improvements, #2


Q6. PI Mode Lessons

Lessons Learned

Technology Development Very High Risk to Depend Upon Development. Always Have a Descope Position. HESSI Developed a Backup Supplier of the 20 micron grids and Needed it. HESSI Developed a Backup Roll Angle Sensor and Needed it THEMIS Developed Backup Detectors and Needed them THEMIS Is Currently Developing Multiple Backup SystemsRECOMMENDATION : PI Team Should Substantially Fund Backups

Proposal Development HESSI was Proposed Multiple Times. Partner Selection Process Involved 7 Companies Selected a Small Growing Company Who Needed HESSI to Work. HESSI S/C partner performance was considered Very Good.RECOMMENDATION : Select Partner Who Has a Huge Interest in Project Success


Q6. PI Mode Lessons

Lessons Learned

University Infrastructure Very Small, Independent Research Groups Attached to Dean Personnel Are Hired into Career Positions at Lower-than-Average Salary with Good

Benefits. Engineers are Motivated and Enthusiastic About Scientific Research. Typical Manager is a Willing Engineer No Centralized Training Program for Managers, Engineers, or Technicians Internal Cost and Schedule Practices Only. Minimal Subcontracting Work (SOW, RFP, Contracts, Termination Liability, Rate

Changes, Requirement Flow Downs, Monitoring Technical Progress, etc...) RECOMMENDATION(s)[1] Invest in Training Programs for Personnel. [2] Investigate Supplemental Aerospace Support (e.g. Thermal, Contamination...)[3] Hire Project Contracting Officer, Scheduler, Accountant [4] Train Your Engineers to Be Subcontract Technical Monitors


Q7. The Future

Would You Do it Again?Will there be more PI-Missions?• Yes; based upon their success• Definitely cost effective• SMEX/MIDEX Provide Science

results as well as large missions

Do it Again?• As Long as THEMIS gets on a

chart like this one.

Mission Grade PI ModeRHESSI 8.8 YesCluster 8.5IMAGE 7.2 YesACE 7.2TIMED 7.1Polar 6.8Voyager 6.7Ulysses 6.3TRACE 5.9 YesFAST 5.9 YesWind 4.7Exodus 3.8SAMPEX 3.7 Yes

Src: SEC Senior Review (Aug 2003)

Documents

THEMIS & RHESSI NRC Irvine 2/01/2005 RHESSI and THEMIS PI Mode Experience Feb 1 2005