themis mcrr gsfc 2/4/2004 themis mission confirmation readiness feb 4 2004
Post on 21-Jan-2016
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
THEMIS Mission Confirmation Readiness
Feb 4 2004
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
AGENDA
8:30 Introduction
F. Snow, GSFC
8:40 Science Overview
V. Angelopolous,UCB
9:00 Mission Overview
P. Harvey, UCB
9:40 Probe & Probe Carrier
M. Cully, Swales
10:00 SMO Assessment
M. Goans, SRO
10:30 RAO Cost Estimate
C. Fryer, SMO
11:00 Discussion
GPMC
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
THEMIS Science Overview
Dr. Vassilis Angelopolous
Principal Investigator
Space Sciences Laboratory
University of California, Berkeley
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
TIME HISTORY OF EVENTS AND MACROSCALE
INTERACTIONS DURING SUBSTORMS (THEMIS)
RESOLVING THE PHYSICS OF ONSET AND EVOLUTION OF SUBSTORMS
Principal InvestigatorVassilis Angelopoulos, UCB
EPO LeadNahide Craig, UCB
Program ManagerPeter Harvey, UCB
Industrial PartnerSWALES Aerospace
SCIENCE GOALS: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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
THEMIS determines where and how substorms are triggered.
Science Overview
• SEC Roadmap: “Understand energy, mass and flux transport in Geospace”
• SEC Roadmap: “How does solar variability affect society?”
• NRC, National Academy: A strategic question in space physics (1995).
Substorms are… …important to NASA:
AuroraCurrent disruption
Reconnection
• Auroral eruptions are recurrent (~3-6hrs) • Magnetospheric substorms are responsible for auroral eruptions.
• Fundamental mode of magnetospheric circulation
• Important for geo-storms have societal implications.
• Rich in new types of basic space plasma physics.
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Events Occuring During a Substorm
CurrentDisruption
AuroralEruption
Reconnection
Current Disruption Model
time Event
0 sec Current Disruption
30 sec Auroral Eruption
60 sec Reconnection
Reconnection Model
time Event
0 sec Reconnection
90 sec Current Disruption
120 sec Auroral Eruption
?
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Science Objectives
THEMIS HAS FOCUSED MINIMUM (TO BASELINE) OBJECTIVES:
• Time History of Events…– Auroral breakup (on the ground)– Current Disruption [CD] (2 probes at ~10RE) – Reconnection [Rx] (2 probes at ~20-30RE)
… and Macroscale Interactions during >5 (>10) Substorms (Primary):– Current Disruption and Reconnection coupling
• Outward motion (1600km/s) of rarefaction wave • Inward motion of flows (1000km/s) and Poynting flux.
– Ionospheric coupling• Cross-tail current reduction (P5u/P4) vs flows• Field aligned current generation by flow vorticity, pressure gradients (P/dz, P/dx).
– Cross-scale coupling to local modes• Field line resonances (10RE, 5 min)
• Ballooning modes, KH waves (1RE, 1min)
• Weibel instability, cross-field current instability, kinetic Alfven waves (0.1RE, 6Hz)
• Production of storm time MeV electrons (Secondary)• Control of solar wind-magnetosphere coupling by the bow-shock,
magnetosheath and magnetopause (Tertiary)
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Probe conjunctions well understood
BASELINE: >10 substorms achieved w/ 5 probes in 2 yrs & 50% margin.
MINIMUM: >5 substorms achieved in 1yr w/ 4 probes.
– computations include lunar, solar, drag, J2 terms
– YP1/2/3/4/5<±2RE; ZP3,4,5/NS<±2RE; ZP1,2/NS<±5RE
• Ascent design is optimal for science
– maximizes conjunctions, minimizes shadows
• … immune to launch insertion errors
– small, piece-wise Vs increase placement fidelity
• … and immune to probe insertion errors.
– Can withstand insertion error of V=80cm/s on any probe
Actual conjunction times in 1st year
Target orbit P1 P2 P3 P4 P4Period (days) 4 2
Apogee (RE) 30 19 12 12 12
Perigee (RE) 1.5 1.2
Inc @ midtail
Drift @ apg., @6:30UT
Knowledge @ apg.
Y<1RE/month
100 km
1
1.16
<7o <9o
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Mission overview: Fault-tolerant design hasconstellation and instrument redundancy
D2
925
-10
@ C
CA
S
Instrument I&TUCB
Mission I&TSwales
Encapsulation
& launch
BGS
OperationsUCB
Probe instruments:ESA: Thermal plasmaSST: Super-thermal plasmaFGM: Low frequency B-fieldSCM: High frequency B-fieldEFI: Low and high frequency E-field
Ground
SST
ESA
EFIa
EFIs
FGM
SCM
Tspin=3s
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Identical instrumentation provides high science margins and fault tolerance
• Instrument redundancy:– SST-ESA energy
overlap– FGM-SCM frequency
overlap– P1/P2 redundant
instrumentation (only directional flux needed in one of two).
• Each probe has:FGMESA2SSTh (2heads)SCM2EFIa (2axials)4EFIs (4spin plane)
Selected instruments built en masse
Instruments required to achieve Primary Mission Objective
Measurement goals P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
Tim
e H
istory o
f Eve
nts
P3,4&5 monitor CDP1,2 bracket Rxtres<30s, Y<±2RE
FGM
2SSTh
2EFIs
FGM
ESA
2SSTh
2EFIs
FGM
ESA
1SSTh
FGM
ESA
1SSTh
FGM
ESA
1SSTh
Ma
crosca
le In
tera
ction
s
Track rarefaction wave, inward flows, Poynting with B<1nT, V/V~10%
FGM
ESA
FGM
ESA
FGM
ESA
FGM
ESA
Radial/cross-sheet pressure, velocity and current gradients require P/P~ V/V ~ B/B ~10%, non-MHD
FGM
ESA
FGM
ESA
2EFIs
FGM
ESA
2EFIs
FGM
ESA
2EFIs
Cross-tail pairs measure FLRs, KH, ballooning on B, V, P @ 10s and fast modes on Bxyz and Exy @ 6Hz
FGMESA SCM
FGMESA SCM 4EFIs2EFIa
FGM ESA
2EFIs
FGM ESA SCM 4EFIs2EFIa
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Mission profile is robust
Pre-Launch
(6hrs)
Launch
(25min)
Check-out & ascend
(60days)
Science ops
(2yrs)
Re-entry
•Checkout•Countdown
•2nd stage burn•Spin-up•3rd stage burn•Spin-down
• Probe dispense • Bus check-out• Dply mags/check instr.• Orbit place. Total of: - 6 side thrustings
- 6 reor/fire/reor sequences
• Deploy EFI
•Minor ctrl ops (all):– 22 side-thrustings– 2 inclination changes
•M
ino
r ctrl op
s (Sid
e-th
rusts, fin
ish b
y EO
M+
9m
o)
- 8 sid
e-thru
stings
• P
assive
re-e
ntry th
ere
afte
r (1-1
0yrs)
• Fuel consumption, maneuvers and contacts during ascend:
validated with GMAN.
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
First bonus: What producesstorm-time “killer” MeV electrons?
Affect satellites and humans in space
Source:
– Radially inward diffusion?
– Wave acceleration at radiation belt?
THEMIS:
–Tracks radial motion of electrons
•Measures source and diffusion
•Frequent crossings
–Measures E, B waves locally
ANIK telecommunicationsatellites lost for days to weeks
during space storm
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Second bonus: What controls efficiencyof solar wind – magnetosphere coupling?
Important for solar wind energy transfer in Geospace
Need to determine how:– Localized pristine solar wind features…
– …interact with magnetosphere
THEMIS:
– Alignments track evolution of solar wind
– Inner probes determine entry type/size
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Mission design meets requirements
Mission profile– Two year mission design easily met in this high Earth orbit
– Launch: D2925 from CCAS (40min window any day)
– Simple probe carrier (3rd stage fixture) w/ release built by an experienced team
– Science & routine ops and multi-object tracking has ample heritage at UCB
– Simple RCS, heritage sfw & ground-cmd and GSFC/GNCD support benefits MOC
Probe design– Simple, passive thermal design w/ thermostatically controlled backup heaters
– Survival at all attitudes under worst shadow conditions
– Simple data flow / automated routine science ops minimize cost and risk• Store/Forward 375Mbit/orbit (256Mbyte capability permits multi-orbit storage)
– Orbit control & knowledge exceed placement rqmts by factor of 10
– Early EMC/ESC mitigation as per heritage practices (e.g. FAST, POLAR)
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Active trade studies constantly reduce risk
Phase A main trade studies:Direct inject with passive PCA reduces schedule and ops risks
PCA dispense simplified: improves clearances, reduces risk
Increased fuel tank capacity
Added solar panels at bottom face
ACS solution simplified with micro-gyros replacing accelerometers
Connected RCS propulsion pods
Phase B main trade studies:Exercised alternate path for SST instrument
Tuned Phase A orbit design to reduce differential precession; enhanced 2nd year science products
Changed BAU processor to reduce software complexity motivated by GSFC experience
Increased tank size to take full advantage of mass to orbit capability, yet at lower cost
Increased thruster size to reduce finite arc inefficiency and Msn Ops complexity
Repackaged SST and SCM electronics along with IDPU
Removed ESA attenuator (simplified instrument) with minimal effect on bonus science
Included redundant actuators and surge protection in instrument designs
An integrated team of scientists and engineers constantly optimize mission design and resources, reducing risk.
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Descope list and science-relatedrisk mitigation factors
Can do baseline science even after inadvertent complete instrument failures
Re-positioning allows recovery from failure of critical instruments on some probes
Graceful degradation results from partial or even full instrument failures– Instrument frequency and energy range overlaps– Complete backup option for EFI radials (need 2 in most probes but have 4)– Relaxed measurement requirements (1nT absolute is not permitted to drive team, but rather a nicety)– Substorms come in wide variety; can still see large ones with degraded instruments
Minimum mission can be accomplished with a reduced set of spacecraft requirements– EMC and ESC requirements important for baseline but less severe for minimum mission– Observation strategy can be tuned to power loss (turn-on/off) and thermal constraints (tip-over/back)– Fuel and mass margins for 1st year (minimum) are 30% larger than for a two year (baseline) mission
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Minimum mission providesdefinitive answer to the substorm question.
P1P2P3P4P5• Simultaneous observations in the key regions
• Ideal geometries for tens of substorms
• Data rates / time resolution exceed requirements
• Analysis tools available from Cluster, ISTP, FAST
• Experienced co-Is are leaders
on both sides of substorm controversy
• Minimum mission accomplished within 8 months
from nominal launch date
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
THEMIS Mission Overview
Peter R. Harvey
Project Manager
Space Sciences Laboratory
University of California, Berkeley
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Salient Features
Science– Purpose
To understand the onset and macroscale (1-10 Re) evolution of magnetospheric substorms.
– CapabilitiesWill provide the first measurements of substorm starting locationWill provide the first measurements of substorm evolution
– Collaborating Institutions
University of California (UCB, UCLA)Swales Aerospace Inc. (SAI)Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)University of Colorado (LASP)Technical University of Braunschweig (TU-BS)Institut fur Weltraumforschung der OAW (IWF)CETP
CESRUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaNOAAUniversity of Saint PetersburgTokyo Institute of Technology
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Salient Features
Mission Parameters– Launch
Vehicle: Delta II, Eastern RangeInjection: 1.1 x 12 Re, 9 degrees inclinationDate: August 2006 ( unrestricted )
– Space SegmentSpacecraft: 5 Spinning probes with fuel for orbit/attitude adjustOrbit Period(s): 1, 2 and 4 daysOrientation: Ecliptic normal
– Ground SegmentObservatories: 20 Stations for All Sky Imaging and Mag Field
– OperationsPhases: L&EO (2 mo), Campaigns (Dec-Mar), De-
OrbitLifetime: 2 years
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
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
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
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
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Instrument Payload
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
PAF Adapter Ring/Tube & Attach to Launch Vehicle
PAF Adapter Ring/Tube & Attach to Launch Vehicle
Main DeckMain Deck
Center SpoolCenter Spool
(4) Lower Probe
Standard Separation
Fittings
(4) Lower Probe
Standard Separation
Fittings
(1) Upper Probe Standard Separation Fitting(1) Upper Probe Standard Separation Fitting
(8) External Struts(8) External Struts Probe Carrier (PC)Probe Carrier (PC)
Probe Carrier Design
Simple probe carrier utilizes– Machined aluminum structure– Standard heritage payload attach fittings
for Probes utilize pyro- actuated clampband– Straight-forward umbilical interconnect
harness– Multi layer insulation blanketing as required
Detailed design supported by comprehensive analysis– NASTRAN model used to recover material
stresses and fundamental frequencies– Base drive analysis used to verify strength
and recover component loads– Preliminary Coupled Loads Analysis
completed for our Delta II ELV
Probe layout on carrier maximizes static and dynamic clearances– Design is the best balance between
deployment clearances and probe structural mass
First Axial Mode: 48.27 Hz
First Lateral Mode:18.29 Hz
Probe Carrier Fundamental Natural Frequencies:
Displacements Not to Scale
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
ADAMS Dispense Model Dynamic Simulation Image
ADAMS Dispense Model Dynamic Simulation Image
Split screen
Probe Separation
Design study and analysis results– Deploy sequence of P1 then P2-P5 simultaneously– 15 rpm nominal PCA spin rate– Probe separation velocity of .35 m/s
Results of evaluating off-nominal conditions– No collisions or close approaches due to combinations
of ‘stuck’ Probes, timing errors and tip-off– Reasonable nutation and pointing angles that
Probe ACS can easily accommodate– Separation initiation is two fault tolerant
Visualization– Used actual output files from ADAMS to make
the animation
Flexibility for tuning deployment later in the design process includes; carrier spin rate, deployment spring stiffness, deployment order, and timing
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Ground System Block Diagram
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Resource Not to Exceed (NTE)
Current Best Estimate (CBE)
Margin
Probe Carrier Assembly Dry Mass (kg) 606.5 1 458.4 32.3%
Delta V (m/s) 700 574 21.9%
Orbit Average EOL Power (W) 38.2 28.1 35.8%
Science Data Storage (MB) 256 187.5 2 36.5%
Probe TLM Data Storage (MB) 16 11 45.5%
Notes: 1. Probe Carrier Assembly Dry Mass NTE = LV Capability (800 kg) - 5 x Fuel (38.7 kg) = 606.5 kg2. Current Best Estimate 750Mbits/orbit + 1 day contingency = 1500Mbits = 187.5MB
RF Link Margin
- Science Downlink (1024 kbps at perigee) 4.2 dB
- H&S Downlink (4 kbps at apogee) 6.0 dB
- Command Uplink (1 kbps at apogee) 6.2 dB
System Margins
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Power Generation
Power Margin and Current Best Estimate History since PDR
– Issues identified after PDR dropped potential power generation capability of baseline design significantly
– Solutions have been identified and are being implemented
PDR December Current Design
EOL Power 42.6 34.4 38.2
CBE 27.3 30.2 28.1
Margin 56.1% 13.7% 35.8%
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Power Generation
Work-around Effect Notes
Extra cells +5.1% Conservative 3 strings lost due to Mag Booms, 1 string loss > 60 deg due to EFI Snout.
Increased area
+9.4% A number of layouts are being evaluated. Increased area represents most conservative option to date. No mass increase anticipated.
Issues Identified since PDR
– Effect of shadowing from EFI Snout and Mag Booms greater than expected
– Losses due to Electrostatic Cleanliness (ESC) Implementation (ITO coating and interconnects) greater than anticipated
– Cell cosine loss assumptions were more optimistic at PDR than actual data
– PDR calculation assumed power would be produced at higher incidence angle than current specification
Solutions being implemented– Added cells around EFI snout to mitigate shadowing– Increased total photon collecting area
Issue Effect
Shadowing -14%
ESC -7%
Cosine loss -2.9%
Incident angle -5.7%
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Organization
Mission Manager Frank Snow, GSFC
Mission Manager Frank Snow, GSFC
Financial MgrK. Harps, UCBFinancial MgrK. Harps, UCB
Launch Vehicle G. Skrobott, KSC
Launch Vehicle G. Skrobott, KSC
Project Scientist D. Sibeck, GSFC
Project Scientist D. Sibeck, GSFC
THEMIS PI V. Angelopolous, UCB
THEMIS PI V. Angelopolous, UCB
Project Manager P. Harvey, UCB
Project Manager P. Harvey, UCB
Science Co-I’s Science Co-I’s EPO N. Craig, UCB
EPO N. Craig, UCB
SubcontractsJ. Keenan, UCBSubcontracts
J. Keenan, UCBScheduling
D. Meilhan, UCBScheduling
D. Meilhan, UCBQuality Assurance
R. Jackson, UCBQuality Assurance
R. Jackson, UCB
Mission Systems
E. Taylor, UCB
Mission Systems
E. Taylor, UCB
Mechanical/ Thermal Systems
P. Turin, UCBC. Smith, UCB
Mechanical/ Thermal Systems
P. Turin, UCBC. Smith, UCB
Mag Cleanliness
C. Russell, UCLA
Mag Cleanliness
C. Russell, UCLA
Probe/Probe CarrierManagement
UCB Oversight: D. KingSwales Mgr: M. Cully
Probe/Probe CarrierManagement
UCB Oversight: D. KingSwales Mgr: M. Cully
Instruments
P. Berg, UCB
Instruments
P. Berg, UCB
Ground Segment
M. Bester, UCB
Ground Segment
M. Bester, UCB
Software Systems
D. King, UCB
Software Systems
D. King, UCB
Mission I&T
R. Sterling, UCB
Mission I&T
R. Sterling, UCB
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Organization
Instrument Development
InstrumentsP. Berg
InstrumentsP. Berg
Electric Field Instrument
(EFI)J. Bonnell
Electric Field Instrument
(EFI)J. Bonnell
ElectroStaticAnalyser
(ESA)C. Carlson
ElectroStaticAnalyser
(ESA)C. Carlson
Solid StateTelescope
(SST)D. Larson
Solid StateTelescope
(SST)D. Larson
InstrumentData Processor
Unit (IDPU)M. Ludlam
InstrumentData Processor
Unit (IDPU)M. Ludlam
FluxgateMag
(FGM)U. Auster
FluxgateMag
(FGM)U. Auster
Search CoilMag
(SCM)A. Roux
Search CoilMag
(SCM)A. Roux
Forrest MozerGreg DeloryArt HullBill DonakowskiGreg DaltonRobert DuckMark PankowDan SchickeleStu HarrisHilary Richard
Forrest MozerGreg 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
M. MarckwardtBill ElliottRon HermanChris Scholz
M. MarckwardtBill ElliottRon HermanChris Scholz
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
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Organization
Ground Systems Development
Ground SegmentGround Segment
Mission Ops Science Ops
(Mission Planning)
Mission Ops Science Ops
(Mission Planning)
Ground Based ObservatoriesGround Based Observatories
Manfred BesterMark LewisTim QuinnSabine FreyTai PhanJohn BonnellLaura Peticolas
Manfred BesterMark LewisTim QuinnSabine FreyTai PhanJohn BonnellLaura Peticolas Stephen Mende
Stu 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
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Agreements
Contracts & Agreements Status
Agreement Role Status Swales Probes and Probe Carrier Subcontract Negotiations Ongoing
LASP EFI - Digital Fields Board Design Subcontract in place CETP SCM - Search Coil Magnetometer
and Preamps LoA Signed by Code S is at Code I
TU-BS FGM - Fluxgate Magnetometer Sensors
LoA Signed by Code S is at Code I
IWF FGM - Fluxgate Magnetometer Electronics
LoA Signed by Code S is at Code I
UCLA Ground Based & EPO Magnetometers Spacecraft EMC expertise
Subaward in place
University of Calgary
Ground Based Observatory Site Development and Operations
LoA Signed by Code S is at Code I
University of Alberta
Ground Based Observatory Site Development and Operations
LoA Signed by Code S is at Code I
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
60 days Funded Schedule Reserve Included
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Schedule
Key Features
Instrument Development– EM Instrument I/F Testing with EM Probe I/F– Integrate Instrument Complement at UCB Prior to S/C Integration– Instrument Complement F1 Tested First Followed by Pairs– All Instrument Complements are Complete before S/C I&T Begins– Instrument I&T Team Will Be Focusing Upon S/C I&T– Added Some Facilities for Qualifying Instruments in Parallel
Spacecraft Development– Integration and Test of Probe1 Completed Prior to Probes 2-5– Sufficient Manpower and Equipment for Parallel I&T
Ground Development– Development and Deployment of 5 GBOs 2 in 1Q05– Development and Deployment of all 20 GBO’s in 1Q06
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Schedule
Metrics
Milestone Comparisons to HESSI
Sufficient Definition– 23 Schedules involving 3977 tasks
Slack– Instruments have 4.5-6 months slack to Earliest I&T with Probes– Instruments have 6.5-9.5 months slack to Expected I&T with Probes– Integrated Probes/Probe Carrier have 2 months to LV Integration
Activity THEMIS PLAN
HESSI ACTUAL
%
Start to PDR 5 mo 4 mo 125% PDR to CDR 6 mo 4 mo 150% CDR thru S/C#1 I&T 12-15 mo 15 mo 80-100% Start thru S/C#1 I&T 24-27 mo 23 mo 104-117% Probe 2 to 5 I&T (ea) 2.5 mo 1.5 mo 166%
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Schedule
Relevant Prior Schedule Performance
FAST Instruments (EFI, ESA, MAG, IDPU)– Hopped in Front of SWAS– Delivered Complement on Time
POLAR / CLUSTER I & II (EFI)– Polar EFI Delivered 8 months ahead of time– Cluster EFW I & II Delivered > 45 Flight Units to WEC in time.
HESSI (Management, IDPU)– Phase B to JPL Environmental Tests (Est. 23 mo, Act. 23.2 mo)– Re-Confirmation to VAFB Delivery (Est. 6 mo, Act 6.3 mo)
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Schedule
Component Source Minimal Changes to Unit ImpactsEFI-SPB Cluster II Moved Electronics to IDPU, Changed to
Right Angle Drive, SMA instead of PyroMass savings
EFI-AXB FAST Shorter, Moved Electronics to IDPU, SMA instead of Pyro
Mass and Stability
ESA(I) FAST IESA Anode locations rearranged to better respond to cold SW and hot tail. Cover release changed from meltwire to SMA.
Added 50 grams
ESA(e) FAST EESA Reduced number of anodes from 16 to 8 Mass savingsSST WIND SST Packaged electronics in IDPU for radiation
shielding.Mass & Power savings
SCM Interbal Sensor None NoneCluster PA Improved packaging & rad tolerance. Mass savings
FGM ROMAP Computer Interface NoneSCM-Boom FAST Single Element, No Mid-Hinge. SMA
instead of PyrotechnicSimpler
FGM-Boom FAST Horizontal Orientation, Mid-Hinge, SMA instead of Pyrotechnic
Simpler
Instrument Heritage Maintained thru PDR
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Cost
Cost Estimate (src CSR Figure3)Cost Element FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 RY FY02Phase A 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.450 0.450 Concept Development 0.450 0.450 0.450Phase B 0.000 6.740 4.221 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.962 10.551 Preliminary Design 6.740 4.221 10.962 10.551Phase C/DInstruments 0.000 0.000 4.970 2.472 1.053 0.000 0.000 8.494 7.920Spacecraft 0.000 0.000 12.037 13.668 5.580 0.000 0.000 31.285 28.968
Proj Mgmt/Sys Eng 1.155 1.604 1.323 1.084 5.165 4.829Science Team Support 0.303 0.400 0.420 1.280 2.403 2.206Prelaunch Ground System 0.453 1.232 1.819 1.702 5.206 4.805EPO 0.008 0.381 0.310 0.191 0.889 0.824NASA - CTV,IVV 0.065 0.204 0.311 0.229 0.809 0.748
Subtotal - Phase C/D 0.000 1.984 20.827 20.322 11.118 0.000 0.000 54.251 50.300Reserves 8.250 4.125 4.125 16.500 15.297
Total Phase C/D 0.000 1.984 29.077 24.447 15.243 0.000 0.000 70.751 65.597Phase E
MO&DA 6.952 6.765 13.718 11.788NASA DSN, TDRSS 0.207 0.130 0.336 0.290E/PO, Other 0.194 0.189 0.383 0.329
Subtotal Phase E 0.000Reserves 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total Phase E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.353 7.084 14.437 12.407Launch Services 0.000 1.000 11.000 31.000 29.000 4.000 0.000 76.000 69.368
Total NASA OSS Cost 0.450 9.724 44.299 55.447 44.243 11.353 7.084 172.600 158.374
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Cost
Cost ReasonablenessTHEMIS Phase B/C/D Costs Compare Well to HESSI Actual Costs– THEMIS Instruments Require Less Development than HESSI
THEMIS Phase E Mission Operations Suitably Larger– Handling 5 Probes Instead of 1; Cost Estimated at 3x
PHASE B/C/D ELEMENTS THEMIS HESSI1. Mgmt, Sci, Sys 11.6% 11.8%2. Space Segment 78.5% 78.4%2.1. Instrumentation 22.4% 30.4%2.2. Spacecraft 56.1% 48.1%3. Ground Segment 8.0% 9.8%4. MODA - -5.0 Education / Public Outreach 1.9% included
PHASE E ELEMENTS THEMIS HESSI T.v.H4.1. Mission Operations 31% 18% 3.04.2. Data Analysis 69% 82% 1.5Total 1.8
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Cost
Relevant Prior Cost PerformancePOLAR / CLUSTER I & II (EFI)– Polar EFI Delivered at 37% Under Budget– Cluster EFW I Delivered 40% Under Budget. – Cluster EFW II Was Built using Reserve from EFW I
HESSI (Management, IDPU)– Completed Spacecraft & Ground Systems at 8% Under Budget– Re-Built Spacecraft 39% Under Budget
HESSI UCB Actual Cost v Plan
Bud-Acc
Act-Acc
Act+Liens
Bud-Acc
Act-Acc
Act+Liens
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Cost
Total Project Cost Performance v Budget
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
ThruApril '03
May '03 June '03 July '03 August '03 September '03 October '03 November '03 December '03
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Summary
SummaryExperienced Teams are In Place
Management, Systems Engineering, Quality Assurance(HESSI, Chips, EUVE, Image, FAST, Cluster, Polar, Firewheel,…)
Cost is ReasonableCompares to Prior Missions, On-Budget thru Phases A/B
Schedule is Consistent with Previous ProjectsHESSI, Polar, Cluster
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
BACKUP SLIDES
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Baseline L1 Requirements
S-1 Substorm Onset Time– Determine substorm onset time and substorm meridian magnetic local time (MLT) using ground
ASIs (one per MLT hr) and MAGs (two per MLT hr) with t_res<30s and dMLT<1 degree respectively, in an 8hr geographic local time sector including the US. (M-11, GB-1)
S-2 Current Disruption (CD) Onset Time– Determine CD onset time with t_res<30s, using two near-equatorial (within 2Re of magnetic
equator) probes, near the anticipated current disruption site (~8-10 Re). CD onset is determined by remote sensing the expansion of the heated plasma via superthermal ion flux measurements at probes within +/-2Re of the measured substorm meridian and the anticipated altitude of the CD. (M-9, IN.SST-1, IN.SST-4, IN.FGM-1)
S-3 Reconnection (Rx) Onset Time– Determine Rx onset time with t_res<30s, using two near-equatorial (< 5Re from magnetic equator)
probes, bracketing the anticipated Rx site (20-25Re). Rx onset is determined by measuring the time of arrival of superthermal ions and electrons from the Rx site, within dY=+/-2Re of the substorm meridian and within <10Re from the Rx altitude. ….. (M-9, IN.EFI-2, IN.ESA-1, IN.SST-2, IN.SST-3, IN.SST-4, IN.FGM-1)
S-4 Simultaneous Observations– Obtain simultaneous observations of: substorm onset and meridian (ground), CD onset and Rx
onset for >10 substorms in the prime observation season (September-April). Given an average 3.75hr substorm recurrence in the target tail season, a 2Re width of the substorm meridian, a 1Re requirement on probe proximity to the substorm meridian (of width 2Re) and a 20Re width of the tail in which substorms can occur, this translates to a yield of 1 useful substorm event per 18.75hrs of probe alignments, i.e, a requirement of >188hrs of four-probe alignments within dY=+/-2Re. (M-1, M-12, IN.FGM-1)
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
S-5 Earthward Flows– Track between probes the earthward ion flows (400km/s) from the Rx site and the tailward moving
rarefaction wave in the magnetic field, and ion plasma pressure (motion at 1600km/s) with sufficient precision (dV/V=10% or V within 50km/s whichever is larger, dB/B=10%, or B within 1nT whichever is larger, dP/P=10%, or P within 0.1nPa whichever is larger) to ascertain macroscale coupling between current disruption and reconnection site during >10 substorm onsets (>188hrs of four-probes aligned within dY of +-2Re). (IN.ESA-1, IN.SST-3, IN.FGM-1)
S-6 Pressure Gradients– Determine the radial and cross-current-sheet pressure gradients (anticipated dP/dR, dP/dZ
~0.1nPa/Re) and ion flow vorticity/deceleration with probe measurement accuracy of 50km/s/Re, over typical inter-probe conjunctions in dR and dZ of 1Re, each during >10 onsets. The convective component of the ion flow is determined at 8-10Re by measurements of the 2D electric field (spin-plane to within +-30degrees of ecliptic, with dE/E=10% or 1mV/m accuracy whichever is larger) assuming the plasma approximation at t_res<30s. (IN.EFI-1, IN.ESA-1, IN.ESA-2, IN.SST-3, IN.FGM-1)
S-7 Cross-Current Sheet changes– Determine the cross-current-sheet current change near the current disruption region (+/-2Re of
meridian, +-2Re of measured current disruption region) at substorm onset from a pair of Z-separated probes using the planar current sheet approximation with relative (interprobe) resolution and interorbit (~12hrs) stability of 0.2nT. (IN.FGM-1, PB-42, PB-43, PB-44)
S-8 non-MHD plasma– Obtain measurements of the Magneto-Hydrodynamic (MHD) and non-MHD parts of the plasma
flow through comparisons of ion flow from the ESA detector and ExB flow from the electric field instrument, at the probes near the current disruption region, with t_res<10s. (IN.EFI-1, IN.ESA-1, IN.SST-3, IN.FGM-1)
… continued: Baseline L1 Requirements
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
S-9 Cross-Tail Pairs– Determine the presence, amplitude, and wavelength of field-line resonances, Kelvin-Helmholz
waves and ballooning waves on cross-tail pairs (dY=0.5-10Re) with t_res<10s measurements of B, P and V for >10 substorm onsets. (IN.ESA-1, IN.SST-3)
S-10 Cross-Field Current Instabilities– Determine the presence of cross-field current instabilities (1-60Hz), whistlers and other high
frequency modes (up to 600Hz) in 3D electric and magnetic field data on two individual probes near the current disruption region for >10 substorm events. (IN.EFI-3, IN.ESA-3, IN.SCM-1)
S-11 Dayside Science– Determine the nature, extent and cause of magnetopause transient events (on dayside). (IN.ESA-4,
IN.SST-6)
… continued: Baseline L1 Requirements
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Minimum L1 Requirements (from L1’s)
4.1.2.1 Substorm Onset Time– Determine substorm onset time and substorm meridian magnetic local time (MLT) using ground MAGs (at
least one per MLT hr) with t_res<30s and dMLT<6 degrees respectively, in a 6hr geographic local time sector including the US.
4.1.2.2 Current Disruption (CD) Onset Time– Determine CD onset time with t_res<30s, using two near-equatorial (within 2Re of magnetic equator)
probes, near the anticipated CD site (~8-10 Re). …(same as baseline)
4.1.2.3 Reconnection (Rx) Onset Time– Determine Rx onset time with t_res<30s, using two near-equatorial (<5Re of magnetic equator) probes,
bracketing the anticipated Rx site (20-25Re). … (same as baseline)
4.1.2.4 Simultaneous Observations– Obtain simultaneous observations of: substorm onset and meridian (ground), CD onset and reconnection
onset for >5 substorms in the prime observation season (September-April). Substorm statistics discussed in S-4 point to a requirement of >94hrs of four probe alignments.
4.1.2.5 Energetic ion and electron fluxes– SST to measure near the ecliptic plane (+/-30o) superthermal i+ and e- fluxes (30-100keV) at t_res<30s.
4.1.2.6 Earthward Flows– Track between probes the earthward ion flows (400km/s) from the reconnection site and the tailward moving
rarefaction wave in the magnetic field, and ion plasma pressure (motion at 1600km/s) with sufficient precision precision (dV/V=10% or V within 50km/s whichever is larger, dB/B=10%, or B within 1nT whichever is larger, dP/P=10%, or P within 0.1nPa whichever is larger) to ascertain macroscale coupling between current disruption and reconnection site during >5 substorm onsets.
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Instrument Cost
Instrument Mass .v. Cost Modeling– Categorized Each Component by its Complexity
• EBOX : Electronics Box (src EFI & HESSI)• MECH : Mechanism with Few Electronics Parts (src Cluster)• SENSOR : Mixed Mechanical and Electronic Parts (src FAST)
– Computed Mass of Flight & Spare Units• Grass Roots Budget is 6% Over Model So Budget is Sufficient
UNIT Kg Units Total Model K$/Kg Estimate Budget RelIDPU (& up196) 4.0 6 23.9 EBOX 230 5506 5369 -3%EFI 11.2 6 67.3 MECH 50 3366 3874 13%ESA 2.1 6 12.5 SENSOR 165 2059 2110 2%SST 1.3 6 7.6 SENSOR 165 1247 1600 22%FGM Boom 1.2 6 7.2 MECH 50 360 349 -3%SCM Boom 0.5 6 3.0 MECH 50 426 427 0%
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Instrument Cost
Heritage Instruments Costs .v. THEMIS– Typical NASA Instrument Contracts Have Greater Scope of Effort
• Science, Management, Systems Engineering, Quality Assurance• Mission Operations and Data Analysis• Significant Instrument Design and Development• Instrument Sensors• Instrument Main Electronics • Instrument Flight Software
– THEMIS Sensor Costs• Include Engineering for Interface-driven Modifications• Include Sensor Fabrication and Test in Quantity• Other Efforts are Costed in WBS 1 (Science, Management, Systems
Engineering, Quality Assurance), WBS 2.1.1 (IDPU, FSW), WBS 4 (MODA)
THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004
Descope Cost
Available Descope OptionsModest Requirements Allow Flexibility in Instrumentation
Cost Savings are Available
Required InstrumentProbe/Instrument P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
FGM * * * * * * * * x *ESA x * * * * x * * x *SST (2 heads) 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 x 1SCM x x * x * x x x x xEFI Axials (2) x x 2 x 2 x x x x xEFI Spin Plane (4) 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 x 2
Baseline Mission Minimum Mission
Descope Table Benefit Time Savings (~$M)EFI Axials Cost CDR 1.75GBO's (1/2) Cost CDR 0.75SCM Cost,Mass CDR 0.35Non-Prime Contacts Cost ORR 0.50
Total 3.35
top related