1 / 7

Particles and Fields Package Weekly Team Meeting, SSL July 19 2010

Particles and Fields Package Weekly Team Meeting, SSL July 19 2010. Dave Curtis, PFP PM. Peer Review Actions. MAG, LPW Peer Review action status?. PFP IPDR. PFP IPDR was completed successfully. Review Chair Report says:

vivek
Download Presentation

Particles and Fields Package Weekly Team Meeting, SSL July 19 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Particles and Fields Package Weekly Team Meeting, SSL July 19 2010 Dave Curtis, PFP PM

  2. Peer Review Actions MAG, LPW Peer Review action status?

  3. PFP IPDR PFP IPDR was completed successfully. Review Chair Report says: PFIS management team did an excellent job compiling a very strong management and technical team. The PFIS has done an outstanding job of engaging all stakeholder organizations in the technical and programmatic discussions. There is a minor concern that many of the team members are engaged in more than one project at Space Systems Laboratory (SSL), however, this seems to be “a way of life” for SSL. At this time, IIRT does not feel this will become a major problem in the future if managed and mitigated properly. The Instrument Suite is predominately derived from heritage designs. The PFIS team is commended for demonstrating the willingness and ability to reuse, requalify and retest the design to ensure functionality. The PFIS team should also be recognized for exceeding the PDR entrance criteria. Documentation provided by the team was mature and far beyond the expectations of a PDR. The documentation was made available prior to the review and the review team did have sufficient time to review and prepare for the PDR. It is the assessment of the IIRT Chairperson that all PDR entrance success criteria were met. The IIRT issued 6 advisories and 6 Request for Actions (RFAs). Advisories and RFAs are provided in detail within this report. The PFIS team should be recognized for a conducting a very successful and through review. It is the opinion of the IIRT Chairperson that the PFIS team passed the PDR and should be allowed to continue to Phase C.

  4. IPDR RFAs EUV Aperture Mechanism Delta Peer Review to be held July 28 Command and Telemetry Database Mnemonics LM has provided naming rules MAG Sensor Accommodations Project issue STATIC Acoustic Tests Added STATIC Acoustics to test flow Have a contact at LM for looking into acoustics at Sunnyvale FPGA Magnetics (from THEMIS) MAVEN design should have better radiated and conducted isolation Avoid having significant power cycling in FPGAs STATIC Foils Test Plans Jim has a plan in review Need to get it reviewed at GSFC (is it ready?)

  5. Mission PDR July 12-14 at GSFC PFP had a 90-minute presentation 6 RFAs written 2 withdrawn 2 closed out already 2 remaining are fairly trivial and don’t involve instruments Programmatic Review (cost, schedule) July 15 Instruments & LM not invited Significant issues worked (according to Project Manager) Cost: GFE availability; General Project staffing levels as well as specific Phase E staffing levels; Waivers (cost impact if they are not granted); “Hanger queen” spares and unknowns about technical acceptance; limited overall spares; open negotiations prior to KDP-C; single STL plan. Risks to meeting Level 1 Requirements:  Mag requirements/ cleanliness/ accommodations; NGIMS pointing requirements/accommodations; Critical Event Telemetry coverage; Instrument performance margins and in some cases perhaps instrument exceeding L1s. Requirements creep:  Operations complexity (new modes and general complexity growth); new requirements for IUVS jitter. There was also an expressed concern on closing on the launch vehicle knowledge type as soon as possible. “The unanimous opinion of SRB members is that the MAVEN project passed the PDR.”

  6. Mission PDR Project Manager’s Assessment: Overall, the issues/concerns described above are actively being worked by the partner organizations and are being tracked as either Top Risks or Key Issues in the Project system.  Our next step is to converge on these items in the next couple months so that we are in a strong position for being confirmed on September 15th.  Additionally, we need to nail these items down now so that we can proceed into Phase C on November 1st with a clear plan forward for Project implementation. Thanks to everyone for your efforts in getting us through this week successfully.  I know we are successful because of all your work throughout Phase B, and particularly this spring and summer.  It is an honor and privilege to be associated with this team.  I hope you all take some well deserved time off with family and friends to recharge your batteries.

  7. Updated LM Rec/Del List Component MOI, due now some of our MICDs have that info LM has returned Thermal Environments Need revised predicts, heater requirements Thermal Model Updates due 1/2011 First circuit schematics due 9/15/2010 Inputs for PF software simulator to LM due 10/1/2010 Ancillary Data Requirements due 1/15/2011 spacecraft data we need to analyze our data PFP EM (PFDPU) to LM for interface test 3/25/2011

More Related