DCS Preliminary Design Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

dcs preliminary design review n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
DCS Preliminary Design Review PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
DCS Preliminary Design Review

play fullscreen
1 / 9
Download Presentation
Presentation Description
Download Presentation

DCS Preliminary Design Review

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. DCS Preliminary Design Review Sean C. Casey USRA Senior Scientist Lead Scientist for Science Support DCS PDR at RIT

  2. DCS PDR Panel John Bieging, University of Arizona Keith Bryant, Raytheon Bob Hovde, USRA Jim Jackson (Chair), Boston University Deborah Levine, IPAC David Weintraub Vanderbilt University DCS PDR at RIT

  3. Review Policy SOFIA science support review policy is to facilitate the development of world class instruments. The review policy is guided by past experiences of other ground based and space based facilities. The review board is responsible for making judgments and recommendations concerning the review content. The board chairman is responsible for supervising the review, mediating discussions, meeting the review objectives, and maximizing the value-added contribution of the review board. Following the review, the board meets to discuss findings, review and and assign RFAs, and prepare a draft report. The board rejects of adopts either in part of in-full all submitted RFAs from the review. The chairman prepares a final report of concerns and recommendations. The review board chairman prepared a final report of the review and delivers the report to the observatory directory within two weeks of the review. The final report is distributed to all the meeting attendees by the observatory director following receipt from the board chairman. DCS PDR at RIT

  4. Statement of requirements Verification plans for compliance with requirements Design based on established practice Components based on standards Use of tested designs COTS Major system design elements - modules, interactions, interfaces Design tradeoff considerations Justification of chosen implementation Relationship with established methods Discussion of key design details Outline of planned implementation process Major concerns and risks Deferred Scope Open items and resolution plans Review Board PDR Charter DCS PDR at RIT

  5. FSI Critical Design Review Charter • Operational requirements and verification compliance • Summary of major derived design specifications and constraints • Major changes since PDR • Interface details and status of agreements • Selected design details • Critical component status • Selected manufacturing details and plans • Configuration control plan (HW/SW • Maintenance plans (HW/SW) • Documentation status • Breadboard and prototype test status and results • Test plans for the deliverable units • Operational features and constraints • Spare provisions • Support equipment requirements, provisions, and plans • Schedule, budget, and flow plan status • Major concerns, open items, and plans for resolution DCS PDR at RIT

  6. SOFIA FSI Review Process • Required of all SOFIA facility instruments • Independent review panel • Review board submits recommendations to observatory director • Director and Instrument PI derive agreement • Science Support follows up on agreement DCS PDR at RIT

  7. Request for Action Item Form Presenter: Section: Comments: Request for Action: Author: Date: DCS PDR at RIT

  8. Technology Development aboard SOFIA Sean Casey USRA DCS PDR at RIT

  9. NASA Programs at TRL’s 1 – 9___ KAO Program (TRL 3.5-5) CETDP Missions IUE/IRAS/HST/ISO SOFIA SOFIA Program (TRL 3.5-7) 2000’s Space Flight Programs (TRL-9) SI Program Propose, Build, and Use Science Instruments PI Program FSI Program Historical FTE Involvement: Principal Investigator Program “The Good Ol’e Boy’s Club” Observatory Support Science Center Personnel (IUE/IPAC/STSCI/CFA/SSMOC) General Investigator (GI) Program “The Broader Science Community” Technology Development I II III Astrophysics 1990’s KAO ‘72-’94 PI’s 1970-80’s TRL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Support Proposals, Observ., Pipeline, Archives 1990’s ? ? DCS 1970-80’s FTEs KAO ‘72-’94 GI’s motion Propose, and use science instruments and archives Astrophysics 1990’s GI’s 1970-80’s KAO ‘72-’94 • As IUE/IPAC/ST ScI/EUV/CFA/etc. have shown: • The strength of the general investigator programs depend upon the strength and resources of the associated Observatory Science Centers • Science Centers must necessarily invoke different solutions for science instrument programs working at differing TR levels DCS PDR at RIT