scipp.ucsc.eduscipp.ucsc.edu/groups/fermi/publications/vol2_glastao_corr3.pdf · ao-99-oss-008...

Response to AO 99-OSS-03

Flight Investigation:An Astro-Particle Physics PartnershipExploring the High-Energy UniverseVolume 2: Cost and Management Plan

November 1999Reissued: January 2000 Stanford University

GLAST LARGE AREA TELESCOPE

AO-99-OSS-008 Proposal Cover Page NASA PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING PROPOSALS This proposal shall be used and disclosed for evaluation purposes only, and a copy of this Government notice shall be applied to any reproduction or abstract thereof. Any authorized restrictive notices that the submitter places on this proposal shall also be strictly complied with. Disclosure of this proposal for any reason outside the Government evaluation process shall be made only to the extent authorized by the Government.

AO 99-OSS-03 – Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) Flight Investigations Proposed Principal Investigator: Prof. Peter F. Michelson Stanford University W. W. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory Stanford, CA 94305-4085 650-723-3004 (phone) 650-725-6544 (fax) [email protected] PI Signature and Date: Institution Authorization Name of Authorizing Official: Lillie Ryans-Culclager Title: Senior Contracts Officer, Office of Sponsored Research Institution: Leland Stanford Jr. University Signature and Date: Full Title GLAST Large Area Telescope Flight Investigation: A Particle-Astrophysics Partnership To Explore the High-Energy Universe Short Title: GLAST LAT Flight Investigation

mailto:[email protected]

Funding Data Cost to NASA: $65,900,000 Total Cost: $181,900,000 Education/Outreach Budget: $1,288,000 NASA Grant or Contract Number of any current NASA award that the PI holds that is a logical predecessor of the newly proposed work NAS5-98039

Type of Proposing Institution: Educational institution Themes Theme 1: SEU Theme 2: ASO Theme 3: SEC Theme 4: Proposal Type: IPI Type of Instrument(s): Large Area Telescope New Technologies Employed: NONE

Principal Investigator: Prof. Peter F. Michelson Stanford University Co-Investigators: Prof. Isabelle Grenier CEA-Saclay Dr. W. Neil Johnson NRL Dr. Jacques Paul CEA-Saclay Dr. Eric Grove NRL Dr. Philippe Goret CEA-Saclay Dr. Michael Lovellette NRL Dr. Arache Djannati-Atai IN2P3 (College de Dr. Bernard F. Phlips NRL/USRA France) Dr. Kent S. Wood NRL Dr. Patrick Fleury IN2P3 (Ecole Dr. P. Roger Williamson SU-HEPL Polytechnique) Dr. Ying-Chi Lin SU-HEPL Dr. Tierry Reposeur IN2P3 (Bordeaux) Dr. Patrick L. Nolan SU-HEPL Dr. Neil Gehrels GSFC Dr. Scott D. Williams SU-HEPL Dr. Jonathan F. Ormes GSFC Dr. Gary L. Godfrey SU-SLAC Dr. Steven Ritz GSFC Dr. Richard Dubois SU-SLAC Dr. Alexander A. Moiseev GSFC Dr. James J. Russell SU-SLAC Dr. Jay Norris GSFC Prof. Elliott D. Bloom SU-SLAC Dr. David J. Thompson GSFC Dr. Roland Svensson Stockholm Obs. Dr. Seth W. Digel GSFC/USRA Prof. Lynn R. Cominsky Sonoma State U. Prof. Takashi Ohsugi Hiroshima U. Dr. Daniel J. Suson Texas A&M U. Prof. Tadashi Kifune UCRR, U. Tokyo Prof. Tuneyoshi Kamae U. Tokyo Dr. Patrizia Caraveo IFC, CNR Prof. Robert Johnson UCSC Prof. Guido Barbiellini INFN Prof. Hartmut Sadrozinski UCSC Dr. Tadayuki Takahashi ISAS Prof. Terry Schalk UCSC Prof. Per Carlson KTH-Stockholm Prof. Thompson H. Burnett U. of Washington Asociate Scientists: Dr. John Mattox Boston U. Prof. G. Pelletier U. Grenoble Prof. Marc Kamionkowski Caltech Dr. Masanobu Ozaki ISAS Dr. Ann Wehrle Caltech Dr. Tom Francke KTH-Stockholm Prof. Mark Oreglia U. Chicago Dr. H. Mayer-Hasselwander MPE Prof. Rene A. Ong U. Chicago Dr. Gottfried Kanbach MPE Dr. J. T. Bonnell GSFC Dr. Andrew Strong MPE Dr. Stanley D. Hunter GSFC Dr. Jeffrey D. Scargle NASA Ames Dr. Alice K. Harding GSFC Dr. Charles D. Dermer NRL Dr. Floyd W. Stecker GSFC Prof. Roger Romani Stanford U. Dr. Matthew G. Baring GSFC/USRA Prof. Vahe Petrosian Stanford U. Dr. Katsuichi Yoshida Hiroshima U. Dr. Paul Kunz SU-SLAC Prof. Masaki Mori ICRR, U. Tokyo Dr. E. do Couto e Silva SU-SLAC Prof. Ryoji Enomoto ICRR, U. Tokyo Prof. Lars Bergstrom Stockholm U. Dr. Piergiorgio Picozza INFN Dr. Yasushi Fukazawa U. Tokyo Dr. Annalisa Celotti Int. School Adv. St. Prof. Joel R. Primack UCSC Dr. J. P. Dezalay CESR Toulouse Prof. Stanford E. Woosley UCSC Dr. F. Lebrun CEA-Saclay Prof. Brenda Dingus U. Wisconsin

E/PO Objectives: Gamma-ray astronomy is an exciting field for the public as well as the researcher. Both young and old can be engaged by the exotic concepts of black holes and violent explosions seen across the Universe. Thus, we believe that the GLAST E/PO program is well suited to promote inquiry into the origin and structure of the Universe and the relationship between energy and matter, concepts included in the Physical Science Content Standards A,B, & D for grades 9-12. Therefore in the GLAST LAT E/PO program we will focus on the specific educational goal of utilizing the observations and scientific discoveries of the GLAST mission to improve understanding and utilization of physical science and mathematics concepts for grades 9-12. Results obtained from the program will be evaluated against well-defined metrics. Proposal Summary/Abstract Our understanding of the Universe has experienced a revolution in the last several years with breakthrough observations of many new phenomena that have changed our view of the high-energy Universe and raised many new questions. The GLAST mission stands poised to open enormous opportunities for answering these questions and advancing knowledge in astrophysics and particle physics. A Large Area high-energy gamma-ray Telescope (LAT), based on pair conversion, is proposed, by an international team, that will meet all of the GLAST mission requirements with large performance margins for critical telescope characteristics. The telescope consists of (i) a precision tracker, based on proven Silicon-strip detector technology, (ii) a finely segmented CsI calorimeter for energy measurement, and (iii) a segmented anticoincidence shield that covers the tracker. The instrument will support a broad scientific investigation. In particular, the LAT will (i) provide rapid notification of high-energy transients, (ii) provide an extensive catalog of several thousand high-energy sources obtained from an all-sky survey, (iii) measure spectra from 20 MeV to more than 50 GeV for several hundred sources, (iv) localize point sources to 0.3 – 2 arcmin, (v) map and obtain spectra of extended sources such as SNRs, molecular clouds, and nearby galaxies, and (vi) measure the diffuse isotropic gamma-ray background up to TeV energies. Certification of Compliance with Applicable Executive Orders and U.S. Code By signing and submitting the proposal identified in this Cover Sheet/Proposal Summary, the Authorizing Official of the proposing institution, as identified above (or the individual proposer if there is no proposing institution); 1. certifies that the statements made in this proposal are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge; 2. agrees t oaccept the obligations to comply with NASA award terms and conditions if an award is made as a

result of this proposal; 3. provides certification to the following that are reproduced in their entirety in this NRA: (i) Certification

Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters; (ii) Certification Regarding Lobbying, and (iii) Certification of Compliance with the NASA Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs.

AO-99-03-OSS-008

Volume 2 - Management and Cost Plan

Table of Contents

GLAST LAT Flight Investigation

1.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Management Organization .........................................................................................11.1.1 Organizational Structure ................................................................................ 11.1.2 Organizational Responsibilities ......................................................................31.1.3 Relationships Between Institutions and Organizations ................................. 51.1.4 Subsystem Teaming Arrangements ............................................................... 51.1.5 Experience and Capabilities of Team Member Organizations .................... 101.1.6 Commitment and Experience of Key Personnel.......................................... 151.1.7 Financial and Contractual Relationships ..................................................... 191.1.8 International Exchange of Information and Materials ................................. 19

1.2 Management Processes and Plans ............................................................................201.2.1 Decision-Making Process .............................................................................201.2.2 System Engineering & Integration .............................................................. 20 1.2.3 Integrated Project Management Control System (PMCS)............................271.2.4 Reporting and Reviews ................................................................................ 301.2.5 Team Member Coordination and Communications..................................... 321.2.6 Multi-Institutional Management .................................................................. 32

1.3 Hardware and Software Acquisition Strategy .........................................................33

1.4 Schedules .................................................................................................................341.4.1 Development and Implementation Schedule ................................................341.4.2 Long-Lead Procurements............................................................................. 37

1.5 Risk Management Plan ............................................................................................371.5.1 Overall Plaln .................................................................................................401.5.2 Top Four Programmatic Risks ..................................................................... 401.5.3 Management Strategies for Reserves and Margins...................................... 411.5.4 Performance Reserves.................................................................................. 421.5.5 Descope Plan................................................................................................ 46

1.6 Performance and Safety Assurance .........................................................................481.6.1 Overview of the Performance and Safety Assurance Plan ...........................481.6.2 Quality Assurance........................................................................................ 491.6.3 Reliability......................................................................................................521.6.4 Software Verification and Validation ...........................................................521.6.5 Safety and Hazard Mitigation ...................................................................... 53

1.7 Education and Public Outreach Management Plan ..................................................531.7.1 E/PO Program Outline ..................................................................................531.7.2 E/PO Partners............................................................................................... 54

Volume 2 - Table of Contents

GLAST LAT Flight Investigation

1.7.3 GLAST Mission E/PO Program .................................................................. 57

1.8 Major Facilities and Equipment ...............................................................................581.8.1 Management, System Engineering, and Performance Assurance ................581.8.2 Tracker ......................................................................................................... 581.8.3 Calorimeter .................................................................................................. 591.8.4 Anticoincidence Detector ............................................................................ 601.8.5 Data Acquisition System ............................................................................. 601.8.6 Grid, Integration and Test ............................................................................ 611.8.7 Plans for New Facilities ............................................................................... 61

1.9 Work Breakdown Structure .....................................................................................61

2.0 Cost Plan ........................................................................................................................... 65

2.1 Cost Estimating Methodology .................................................................................652.1.1 Grass-Roots Cost Estimate .......................................................................... 652.1.2 Cost Estimating Assumptions ...................................................................... 662.1.3 Budgeting Bases of Estimates...................................................................... 662.1.4 Parametric Cost Estimate............................................................................. 72

2.2 Budget Reserve Strategy ..........................................................................................73

2.3 Formulation Phase Cost Proposal ............................................................................732.3.1 Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet SF1411 .......................................... 732.3.2 Workforce Staffing Plan .............................................................................. 732.3.3 Formulation Phase Time-Phased Cost Summary ........................................ 75

2.4 Implementation Phase Cost Estimate ......................................................................822.4.1 Workforce Staffing Plan .............................................................................. 822.4.2 Implementation Phase Time-Phased Cost Summary................................... 84

2.5 Operations and Data Analysis Cost Estimate ..........................................................912.5.1 Operations Phase Time-Phased Cost Summary........................................... 91

2.6 Total Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................962.6.1 Total Cost Funding Profile .......................................................................... 962.6.2 Total Cost Funding Profile by WBS............................................................ 96

2.7 Institutional Bases of Estimates .............................................................................1032.7.1 Institutional General Rates......................................................................... 1032.7.2 Institutional Labor Rates............................................................................ 103

AppendicesAppendix E Acronyms..............................................................................................E-1Appendix F Statement of Work ................................................................................ F-1Appendix G SF1411 Contract Proposal Pricing Cover Sheet .................................. G-1Appendix H Detailed Subsystem Budget Estimates ................................................ H-1Appendix I AO/Proposal Compliance Matrix .......................................................... I-1


GLAST LAT Flight Investigation 1

1.0 MANAGEMENT PLANThe GLAST LAT Management Plan is built uponthe organization shown in Figure 1.1.1. The LATteam is led by the Instrument Principal Investi-gator (IPI), Peter Michelson, who has overallresponsibility for all aspects of the LAT Instru-ment Project. Key elements of the ManagementPlan are as follows:

• The Instrument Project Office (IPO) at theStanford Linear Accelerator Center, StanfordUniversity (SU-SLAC), is directly coupled toboth SLAC’s and the team’s technical infra-structure and supports the IPI in the manage-ment of the project. The core of the IPO iscomposed of the IPI, the Instrument ProjectManager (IPM), William Althouse, and theInstrument Technical Manager (ITM),Tuneyoshi Kamae. Clear lines of authorityand reporting, as described in Section 1.1,are established.

• Direct accountability for all aspects of theproject to the IPO central management issupported by a proven Project ManagementControl System (PMCS) provided by SU-SLAC. Good communication is a key focusfor maintaining effective managerial guid-ance and strongly performing subsystemteams. The SLAC laboratory managementpro-actively supports the IPO.

• A work breakdown structure (WBS) has beendeveloped in concert with all of the instru-ment team member institutions and is theprimary tool for delineating the details of thetasks.

• Adequate technical and programmaticreserves have been budgeted and baselined.Their allocation will be centrally managedby the IPO and formally distributed under aConfiguration Control Plan, described inSection 1.2.

• The IPO (IPI, IPM, and ITM) meets weeklywith SLAC management—the laboratorydirector and the research director—as part ofthe project review process. These meetingswill facilitate the laboratory’s role of techni-cal support and will serve as an “early warn-ing” system in detecting and resolvingemerging problems.

• Finally, the Management Plan is built uponthe dedication and personal commitment ofeach team member, with the full support ofhis/her institution. These team characteristicshave already been demonstrated throughoutthe GLAST Mission Concept phase, and dur-ing the technology development and demon-stration phase preceding this proposal. TheInstrument team co-investigators are identi-fied in Table 1.0.1.

Each LAT institution and individual hasrecent experience in their areas of responsibility.They bring a combination of experience withflight systems, and with the technologies rele-vant to this flight instrument. The Stanford Uni-versity-Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SU-SLAC), lead organization and responsible insti-tution for managing the Instrument Project,brings extensive experience in successfully man-aging multi-institutional, multinational projects,of a scale similar to the GLAST LAT. Thisincludes a 25-year history in the management,development, and installation of eight facility-class particle detectors, all on a scale larger thanGLAST. This has recently culminated in themanagement and installation of the BABARdetector—a $110 million international project.Relevant experience in the management ofspace-flight hardware projects is brought to theproject by the W. W. Hanson ExperimentalPhysics Laboratory (SU-HEPL), at Stanford Uni-versity.

The multi-institutional LAT team organiza-tion is built upon the existing foundation of aneffective organization developed and managedby Stanford University’s SLAC and HEPL labo-ratories. This organization was developed duringthe technology development and demonstrationphase that preceeded this proposal. There hasalso been significant previous experience withall major foreign partners.

1.1 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

1.1.1 Organizational StructureThe GLAST LAT management organization cap-tures the strengths of an international, multidis-ciplinary team and also addresses potential risksassociated with the management of multi-institu-tional instrument subsystems. The structure is


2 GLAST LAT Flight Investigation

based on the WBS for the instrument. Thisunequivocally defines the flow-down of rolesand responsibilities to all subsystems and teammember organizations within the subsystem.Table 1.1.1 shows the alignment of the top-levelWBS for the instrument with the responsibleorganizations. Team institution names and acro-nyms are shown in Table 1.1.2, and a compre-hensive acronym list is given in Appendix E.

Table 1.0.1: Science Team Co-InvestigatorsScience Team

Member Institution Role/Responsibility

P. Michelson*^ SU-HEPL/SLAC Principal InvestigatorS. Ritz GSFC Instrument Scientist

T. Kamae*^SU-SLAC, JGC(Tokyo)

IDT Lead, Lead Japanese Scientist

N. Gehrels* GSFC SSAC ChairR. Johnson* UCSC TKR ManagerH. Sadrozinski* UCSC TKR detectors – US LeadG. Godfrey SU-SLAC TKR AssemblyT. Kifune JGC(ICRR) TKR

T. Ohsugi JGC (Hiroshima)TKR Detectors – Japan Lead

E. Bloom*^ SU-SLAC TKR Integration

G. Barbiellini*^ INFNTKR Production – Italian Lead Scientist

N. Johnson*^ NRL CAL ManagerE. Grove NRL CAL IntegrationB. Phlips NRL/USRA CAL Detectors - US

I. Grenier*^ CEA-SaclayCAL, French Lead Scientist

P. Fleury*IN2P3 (Ecole Polytechnique)

CAL, Dep. French Lead

J. Paul CEA-Saclay CAL

A. Djannati-AtaiIN2P3 (College de France)

CAL Simulations

P. Goret CEA-Saclay CAL – xtal readoutT. Reposeur IN2P3(Bordeaux) CAL – GSE/testingP. Carlson* RIT, Sweden CAL – CsI procurementJ. Ormes* GSFC ACD Manager

D. Thompson*^ GSFCACD Design, Multi-wavelength Coordinator

A. Moiseev GSFC/USRAACD Assembly & Integration

R. Williamson* SU-HEPL DAQ ManagerK. Wood* NRL DAQ ProcessorsM. Lovellette NRL DAQ InterfacesR. Dubois SU-SLAC Software System Mgr.J.J. Russell SU-SLAC Inst. Flight Software LeadS. Williams SU-HEPL Inst. Ops. Mgr.T. Burnett UW Inst. Simulations Lead

T. Schalk UCSCTrack Reconstruction Software

S. Digel GSFC/USRAScience Analysis Software

J. Norris GSFCInstrument Simulation, Data Analysis

Y. C. Lin SU-HEPL Data AnalysisP.L. Nolan SU-HEPL Data AnalysisD. Suson UT-Kingsville Instrument SimulationR. Svensson Stockholm Obs. Data Analysis

P. Caraveo* IFC/CNRMalindi Ground Station, Dep. Italian Lead

L. Cominsky SSU E/PO Lead

* Senior Scientist Advisory Committee

^ Member of SWG

Table 1.1.1: Work Breakdown Structure and Institutional Responsibility Alignment

WBS # Description4.1.1 Instrument Management

Lead: SU-SLACSU-HEPL

4.1.2 Systems EngineeringLead: SU-SLAC

4.1.3 Science Support*Lead: SU-HEPL

SU-SLACTeam*

4.1.4 TrackerLead: UCSC

SU-SLACJGCINFN

4.1.5 CalorimeterLead: NRL

French Team4.1.6 Anti-Coincidence Detector

Lead: GSFC4.1.7 Data Acquisition System

Lead: SU-HEPLNRLSU-SLAC

4.1.8 GridLead: SU-SLAC

4.1.9 Integration and TestingLead: SU-SLAC

SU-HEPLGSFC (balloon flight)

4.1.10 Performance AssuranceLead: SU-SLAC

4.1.11 Instrument Operations CenterLead: SU-HEPL

SU-SLAC4.1.12 Education & Public Outreach

Lead: SSU

* For budget purposes, science support and Operations Phase MO&DA support for subsystem teams are tracked in the appropriate subsystem WBS element



This plan is strongly focussed on the sub-system elements, as opposed to the team institu-tions, to provide clear oversight and analysis ofsubsystem performance through the life of theproject. The following section discusses the gen-eral method for implementation of this plan.

1.1.2 Organizational ResponsibilitiesFigure 1.1.1 shows the GLAST LAT organizationchart. The Instrument Principal Investigator (IPI)is the ultimate authority within the LAT team forall decisions concerning the instrument develop-ment. The IPI manages the development of theinstrument by way of the IPO, and coordinatesefforts of the collaboration science team. Adviceconcerning the scientific direction of the projectis provided to the IPI by the Senior ScientistAdvisory Committee (SSAC) composed of mem-bers of the Collaboration Science Team. Deci-

sion-making authority flows from the IPI to theInstrument Project Manager (IPM) by delegationof all day-to-day decision-making and authoritywith regard to management of technical, cost,and schedule issues. The IPM manages the engi-neering development and delivery of the instru-ment, and ensures compliance to cost, schedule,and technical performance. The education andPublic Outreach Coordinator (E/PO) also reportsdirectly to the IPI, and excecutes the E/PO pro-gram of the GLAST instrument project.

Instrument technical development is theresponsibility of the Instrument Technical Man-ager (ITM), through the Instrument Design Team(IDT),which the ITM chairs. The IDT is responsi-ble for controlling the coordinated design, devel-opment, fabrication, integration, testing, andsupport of the instrument and its subsystems. Itsmembership includes all subsystem managersand key system engineering personnel.

The IPI, IPM, and ITM comprise the core ofthe IPO management team. The IPM will serve asthe prime contact point in the IPO.

The Instrument System Engineer (ISE)establishes and maintains performance specifica-tions, verification and test plans, interface docu-ments, and technical metrics and reserves. TheISE also allocates and maintains these budgetsby instrument subsystem elements: Tracker(TKR), Calorimeter (CAL), Data Acquisition(DAQ), Anticoincidence Detector (ACD), Instru-ment Grid, and Instrument Operations Center(IOC).

The Project Control Manager (PCM) man-ages the budget and reserve control system forcost, schedule and technical performance, exe-cuting the change-control management of allperformance parameters for the project. ThePCM is also the primary financial interface in theIPO for all team member institutions.

The subsystem managers (for TKR, CAL,ACD, DAQ, and Grid) direct the development ofeach of the instrument subsystems. Subsystemmanagers maintain authority over team memberswith regard to subsystem work, and report to theIPM, particularly on matters of engineeringdevelopment, technical performance, cost, andschedule.

Table 1.1.2: Team Institutions and AcronymsAcronym Institution Name

Domestic Team InstituitionsSU Stanford UniversitySU-HEPL Hanson Experimental Physics LaboratorySU-SLAC Stanford Linear Accelerator CenterGSFC NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterNRL Naval Research LaboratoryUCSC University of California at Santa CruzSSU Sonoma State UniversityUW University of WashingtonTAMUK Texas A&M University—KingsvilleJapanese Team InstitutionsJGC Japan GLAST CollaborationTokyo University of TokyoICRR Institute for Cosmic-Ray ResearchISAS Institute for Space and Astronautical ScienceHiroshima Hiroshima UniversityItalian Team InstitutionsINFN Instituto Nazionale di Fisica NucleareASI Italian Space AgencyIFC/CNR Istituto di Fisica, Cosmica, CNR French Team InstitutionsCEA/DAPNIA Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Départe-

ment d'Astrophysique, de physique des Parti-cules, de physique Nucléaire et de l'Instrumentation Associée

IN2P3 Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules

IN2P3/LPNHE-X Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire des Hautes Energies de l’Ecole Polytechnique

IN2P3/PCC Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire et Cos-mologie, College de France

IN2P3/CENBG Centre d'études nucléaires de Bordeaux Gra-dignan

Swedish Team InstitutionsKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholm Stockholms Universitet



The Instrument Integration and Test Man-ager (I&T Manager) develops and maintains pro-cedures and schedules for the instrument I&Tphase in accordance with the plans establishedby the ISE. The I&T Manager will also reviewthe I&T schedules for each instrument subsystemthat are developed by the subsystem managers,and will be responsible for maintaining the over-

all I&T schedule. The I&T Manager reports tothe IPM.

The Instrument Scientist (IS) monitors theoverall flight instrument design and constructionto ensure that the instrument meets the scienceperformance requirements. The IS reportsdirectly to the IPI.

Figure: 1.1.1: GLAST LAT Organization Chart

(12) Education andPublic Outreach

L. Cominsky (SSU)

Senior ScientistAdvisory Committee

Chair: N. Gehrels (GSFC)

(2) Inst. System Engineering

Inst. System Eng. (ISE)T. Thurston* (SU-SLAC)

Instrument Design Team

Instrument TechnicalManager (ITM)

T. Kamae (SU-SLAC)

(1) Project Controls

Project ControlManager (PCM)

C. Chang (SU-SLAC)

Instrument Scientist (IS)S. Ritz (GSFC)

Principal Investigator (IPI)P.F. Michelson

(Stanford University)

(1) Project Manager (IPM)W. Althouse (SU-SLAC)

(3) CollaborationScience Team

(9) Integration andTest Manager

M. Nordby (SU-SLAC)(10) Performance and SafetyAssurance Manager (PSAM)

D. Marsh (SU-SLAC)

(5) CalorimeterSubsystem

ManagerW.N. Johnson

(NRL)NRL,France,

Sweden

(6) ACDSubsystem

ManagerJ. Ormes(GSFC)

(8) Grid/ThermalSubsystemManagerM. Nordby(SU-SLAC)

(11) InstrumentOps. Center

ManagerS. Williams(SU-HEPL)

(4) TrackerSubsystem

ManagerR. Johnson

(UCSC)UCSC, SU-SLAC,

Japan, Italy

(7) DAQSubsystem

ManagerR. Williamson(SU-HEPL)SU, NRL

10-998509A41

Instrument ProjectOffice (IPO)

Co-located at SU-SLAC

* Chief Engineer of SLAC ResearchDivision, acting ISE. Final negotiating

underway for permanent ISE.



The Performance and Safety AssuranceManager (PSAM) reports to the IPM, and isresponsible for the development and executionof all quality assurance, safety, and environmentand health activities for the project. Toward thatend, the PSAM works closely with the ISE, andwith subsystem managers and quality assurancepersonnel to assure appropriate and consistentquality measures are implemented.

The IPO consists of the IPI, IPM, ITM, ISE,I&T Manager, PCM, and PSAM.

1.1.3 Relationships Between Institutions and Organizations

The LAT project captures the strengths of multi-ple government- and university-based technicalorganizations, and two US and four foreignfunding agencies. The relationships betweenthese organizations is illustrated in Figure 1.1.2,

while the details of the roles and responsibilitiesof each team organization are provided in thesections below. The figure illustrates the flow oftechnical direction from the Goddard SpaceFlight Center (GSFC) Project Office to the IPO,and from the IPO to all supporting organiza-tions.The figure also shows the flow of productdeliveries along the technical direction paths

(but in the opposite direction), and the flow ofboth NASA and Department of Energy (DOE)funds.

Where direct contracting mechanisms areinappropriate, the team institutions are linked byMemoranda of Agreement (MOAs). An Inter-agency Agreement between NASA and DoD willprovide the funding vehicle for NRL, whilefunds to the GSFC LHEA will be transferredinternally at GSFC. In both instances, the GSFCProject Office would authorize these fundingtransfers only upon request of the GLAST LATIPO.

A particular advantage of the arrangementshown in the figure is that NASA funding author-ity will be processed and accounted for by theSU-HEPL business system, which is familiarwith NASA procedures and requirements. DOEfunds will be processed and accounted for by theSU-SLAC business system, which is similarlyfamiliar with DOE procedures and require-ments. The separation ensures that the integrityand tracking of funds is maintained for bothagencies. However, all funding, commitmentand expenditure transactions will be controlledby the PCM captured by the IPO’s IntegratedProject Management Control System (seeSect. 1.2.3 below). This will ensure reporting,tracking, and visibility of all project expendi-tures in a coherent manner.

1.1.4 Subsystem Teaming Arrangements

Each LAT team member institution has demon-strated experience to perform their responsibili-ties. The team institutions bring a combinationof flight instrument experience on a scale similarto the GLAST LAT effort, extensive experiencewith the technologies relevant to the LAT, andrecent experience with successful implementa-tion of large, complex projects that are bothmulti-institutional and international in scope.Collectively, the institutions bring a consider-able history of successful collaboration.

The collaboration began as a relativelyloose-knit team of institutions, sharing a com-mon set of scientific goals, and a strong interestin developing the GLAST science and instru-ment. As the collaboration has evolved, a strongorganization has developed. Today, the WBS

Figure: 1.1.2: Relations Between Team Institutions and Organizations

SLAC

StanfordUniversity

HEPL

NRL SSU

Technical Direction (→)and Product Delivery (←)

Contract/Funding (NASA)

FrenchFunds

SwedishFunds

JapaneseFunds

ItalianFunds

MOA

Contract/Funding (DOE)

SpacecraftProvider

IndustrialSupport

SubcontractorsUCSC

10-998509A93

Technical

Information

GSFCLHEA

UGC INFN

DOENASA/GSFC

GLASTProject Office

IPO

CEA- IN2P3

KTH



and subsystem responsibilities and teamingarrangements have been firmly established, andformal agreements are nearing ratification. Theteaming arrangements for the various sub-systems are discussed below, along with the keypersonnel for each subsystem team.1.1.4.1 Management, System Engineering,

Science, and Performance Assurance SU-SLAC is responsible for management of theGLAST LAT instrument development and imple-mentation, providing systems instrument engi-neering guidance, and Performance and SafetyAssurance oversight to the project. The IPO atSU-SLAC is responsible for managing finances,accounting, contracts, schedule, and technicalperformance of the GLAST instrument.

The GLAST management plan recognizesand addresses the oversight and financialaccountability requirements of the two U.S.agencies providing funds for the project: NASAand DOE. These will be accomplished by the IPOthrough the use of a centralized Project Manage-ment Control System (PMCS), and by leveragingthe existing infrastructure at both SU-SLAC andSU-HEPL. The IPO will provide integratedproject management oversight for all U.S. fund-ing sources. It will also manage project progressacross all institutions through implementation ofan earned value system.

GSFC LHEA is responsible for monitoringthe flight instrument science requirements toinsure that the instrument meets the mission sci-ence requirements, and for the coordination ofmultiwavelength observations in support of sci-ence objectives.

The instrument team science investigationwill be carried out by all members of the instru-ment science team under the direction of the IPI.Key Positions:• Instrument Principal Investigator (IPI)(SU-

SLAC/HEPL): Responsible for the overalldevelopment and delivery of the GLASTLAT, the quality of the scientific investiga-tion, and the dissemination of results; timelydelivery of required documentation, soft-ware, and data within budget limitations; andthe final performance and calibration of theinstrument. Requirements of the position area strong scientific background in astrophys-

ics, demonstrated ability to scientificallyplan and organize a space science investiga-tion, and the ability to communicate effec-tively.

• Instrument Project Manager (IPM)(SU-SLAC): Responsible for the day-to-day man-agement of the GLAST LAT project.Requirements of the position are a demon-strated ability to plan, organize, integrate,and control a complex space instrumentdevelopment and implementation projectwith major contributions from several orga-nizations; ability to communicate effec-tively.

• Instrument Technical Manager (ITM)(SU-SLAC): Responsible for technical manage-ment of the development and construction ofthe instrument, to ensure fulfillment of scien-tific objectives. Chairs the IDT. Require-ments for the position are a demonstratedknowledge of high-energy particle detectortechnology; the ability to design instrumen-tation utilizing these technologies; a strongscientific background in experimental high-energy physics or astrophysics, and demon-strated skills in managing such projects; abil-ity to communicate effectively.

• Instrument System Engineer (ISE)(SU-SLAC):Responsible for providing technical leader-ship, and directing the work of the subsystemdevelopment teams through the developmentand tracking of requirements, reserves, inter-face control documents, performance, andverification specifications. Assures that allsubsystem elements are compatible and meetoverall objectives. Oversees, from the instru-ment side, all aspects of the S/C-instrumentinterfaces. Member of the IDT. Require-ments for the position are a demonstratedknowledge of scientific and engineering dis-ciplines involved in space-flight instrumen-tation; comprehensive knowledge ofscientific system and subsystem designs andoperations; ability to identify problems, for-mulate and recommend solutions; systemsengineering understanding of all the missionrequirements; ability to communicate effec-tively.



• Instrument Electrical Systems Engineer (SU-SLAC): Responsible for providing technicalleadership and directing the work of the sub-system electronics development teamsthrough the development and tracking ofrequirements, reserves (particularly power),interface control documents, performanceand verification specifications; assures thatall subsystem electronics elements are com-patible and meet overall objectives and thatall spacecraft electrical interfaces aredefined; is member of the IDT. Requirementsfor the position are a demonstrated knowl-edge of electrical engineering disciplinesinvolved in complex instrumentation withseveral subsystems; comprehensive knowl-edge of scientific system and subsystemdesigns and operations; ability to identifyproblems, formulate and recommend solu-tions; electronics systems engineering under-standing of all the mission requirements;ability to communicate effectively.

• Software System Manager (SU-SLAC):Responsible for the overall direction of soft-ware development activities among severalinstitutions; development of the SoftwareQuality Assurance (SQA) plan includingsoftware configuration management.Requirements for the position are a demon-strated knowledge of effective SQA practice;understanding of mission software require-ments; ability to communicate effectively.

• Project Control Manager (PCM)(SU-SLAC):Manages budgets and reserves for cost,schedule and technical performance, exe-cutes the change-control management of allperformance parameters for the project. ThePCM is also the primary financial interfacefor all team member institutions. Require-ments for the position include demonstratedbackground in the management and controlof large, multi-institutional projects. Experi-ence in tracking and analyzing project per-formance using computer software tools andanalysis techniques.

• Performance and Safety Assurance Manager(PSAM)(SU-SLAC): Responsible for thedevelopment and execution of all qualityassurance activities for the project. Toward

that end, the PSAM works closely with theISE, and with subsystem managers and qual-ity assurance personnel to assure appropriateand consistent quality measures are imple-mented. Requirements for the positioninclude a demonstrated background andknowledge of modern quality assurancetechniques, with specific emphasis on theISO 9001 quality program, and space flightquality assurance practices.

• Instrument Scientist (IS)(GSFC): Responsiblefor monitoring the flight instrument designand construction; coordinating the necessaryinstrument and science simulations to sup-port these activities; advises the IPI on allmatters that affect the scientific performanceof the instrument; is member of IDT andSSAC. Requirements for the position are ademonstrated knowledge of high-energy par-ticle detector technology; the ability to eval-uate the expected performance of instrumentdesigns with computer modeling; the abilityto communicate effectively.

1.1.4.2 TrackerUCSC is responsible for the overall managementof the GLAST Tracker subsystem, and for thedevelopment of the silicon tracker readout elec-tronics.

SU-SLAC is responsible for the Trackermechanical development, and for fabrication,assembly, and integration of the Tracker mod-ules. This effort also receives mechanical engi-neering design support from Hytec, Inc., locatedin Los Alamos, New Mexico. Hytec specializesin precision engineering of composite structures.They bring relevant experience to the project,having provided the key mechanical engineeringdesign work for the very large-scale GEM andSDC silicon tracking detectors that were plannedfor the Superconducting Super Collider. Hytecperformed much of the TKR and instrumentdesign engineering during the Concept Phase.

The University of Tokyo is responsible forthe specification and procurement of siliconstrip-detectors for the fl ight instrument.Hiroshima University is responsible for thedetailed specifications and design of the silicon-strip detectors for the Tracker subsystem and for



participation in the procurement and acceptancetesting of detectors for the flight instrument.

INFN, Italy is responsible for the fabrica-tion, assembly, and testing of silicon-strip detec-tor ladders and trays for eight (TBR) of thesixteen tracker modules.Key Positions:• Tracker Subsystem Manager (UCSC):

Responsible for the development and deliv-ery of the instrument tracker subsystem inaccordance with the subsystem performancespecifications and within schedule andresource commitments; serves as a memberof the SSAC; is member of IDT. Require-ments for the position are a broad knowledgeof high-energy particle physics instrumenta-tion with particular expertise in particle-tracking technology and instrumentation;ability to plan, organize, implement, andintegrate a complex technical project; abilityto communicate effectively.

• Italian Lead Scientist (INFN): prime point ofcontact between the Tracker SubsystemManager and the Italian GLAST team, and isresponsible for the scientific oversight of thetechnical development work in Italy and forthe delivery of components of the GLASTTracker. The Lead Scientist is a member ofthe SSAC and the SWG. Requirements of theposition are a strong scientific and technicalbackground in high-energy physics or astro-physics, with a broad knowledge of high-energy particle detector technology.

• Italian Project Manager (INFN): Responsiblefor the day-to-day management of TKR tasksin Italy, as delegated by the Italian Lead Sci-entist. Requirements of the position are ademonstrated ability to plan, organize, inte-grate, and control a space instrument devel-opment project in collaboration withinternational partners.

• Japanese Lead Scientist (University ofTokyo): Prime point of contact between theTracker Subsystem Manager and the Japa-nese GLAST team, and is responsible for thescientific oversight of the technical develop-ment work in Japan and for the delivery ofthe silicon strip detector components for theTracker. The Lead Scientist is a member of

the SSAC and SWG. Requirements of theposition are a strong scientific background inastrophysics, demonstrated ability to scien-tifically plan and organize a space scienceinvestigation; ability to communicate effec-tively.

• Tracker Detector Scientist (Hiroshima Uni-versity): Responsible for the day-to-daytechnical oversight of silicon detector devel-opment and production in Japan. Require-ments for this position are broad knowledgeof particle-tracking technology and instru-mentation with particular emphasis on expertknowledge of silicon-strip detectors; abilityto plan and organize a scientific projecteffectively.

1.1.4.3 CalorimeterNRL is responsible for managing the develop-ment of the calorimeter subsystem. They willalso plan and execute the calorimeter electronicsintegration and calorimeter flight unit testing,including environmental testing, and calibration.

CEA/DAPNIA is responsible for the overallmanagement of the French contributions to theGLAST LAT, including contributions from theIN2P3 organizations. The CEA technical respon-sibilities include the design, prototyping, fabri-cation, and testing of the GLAST calorimeterfront-end analog readout ASIC. CEA scientistsare also members of the instrument science teamand will contribute to the analysis softwaredevelopment effort.

IN2P3/LPNHE-X is responsible for themechanical design and qualification of the calo-rimeter module structural support system and themechanical integration of the CsI crystals intothe module structural support. IN2P3 scientistsare also members of the instrument science teamand will contribute to the analysis softwaredevelopment.

IN2P3/PCC is responsible for calorimeterand instrument-level simulation efforts andIN2P3/CENBG is responsible for the GSE in sup-port of ASIC testing.

The Swedish groups are responsible for theprocurement and acceptance testing of the CsIcrystals for the calorimeter subsystem.



Key Positions:• Calorimeter Subsystem Manager (NRL):

Responsible for the development and deliv-ery of the instrument calorimeter subsystemin accordance with the subsystem specifica-tions and within schedule and resource com-mitments. Serves as a member of the SSAC,SWG and IDT. Requirements for the positionare comprehensive technical knowledge ofcalorimetry; ability to plan, organize, imple-ment, and integrate a complex technicalproject; ability to communicate effectively.

• French Lead Scientist (CEA): Prime point ofcontact between the Calorimeter subsystemmanager and the French GLAST team.Responsible for the delivery of componentsof the GLAST calorimeter as specified in theMOA and SOWs pertaining to the calorime-ter. The Lead Scientist is a member of theSSAC and SWG. Requirements of the posi-tion are a strong scientific background inastrophysics, demonstrated ability to scien-tifically plan and organize a space scienceinvestigation; ability to communicate effec-tively.

• French Deputy Lead Scientist (IN2P3/LPNHE-X): Responsible for the scientificoversight of the technical development workin France. The Deputy Lead Scientist is amember of the SSAC. Requirements for theposition are a strong scientific and technicalbackground in high-energy physics or astro-physics, with a broad knowledge of high-energy particle detector technology.

• French Project Manager (CEA): responsiblefor the day-to-day management of theGLAST LAT calorimeter tasks in France.Requirements of the position are a demon-strated ability to plan, organize, implement,integrate, and control a space instrumentdevelopment project in collaboration withinternational partners.

• Swedish Lead Scientist (KTH): prime point ofcontact with the Calorimeter subsystemmanager for the Swedish GLAST team and isresponsible for the procurement of the CsIcrystals for the calorimeter. The lead scien-tist is a member of SSAC.

1.1.4.4 Anticoincidence Detector (ACD)GSFC will develop, fabricate, test, and deliverthe ACD subsystem of the instrument.Key Positions:• ACD Subsystem Manager (GSFC): Responsi-

ble for managing the development and deliv-ery of the instrument ACD subsystem inaccordance with the subsystem specifica-tions and within schedule and resource com-mitments. Serves as a member of the SSACand IDT. Requirements for the position arebroad knowledge of technologies needed forscientific flight instruments; ability to plan,organize, and integrate a complex technicalproject; ability to communicate effectively.

1.1.4.5 Data Aquisition (DAQ)SU-HEPL is responsible for managing and engi-neering the data acquisition system for theinstrument. NRL will develop the DAQ CPU, andlead development of the data switch FPGA(DSF) and the Spacecraft Interface Unit (SIU).SU-SLAC will lead the development of the flightdata acquisition software.Key Positions:• DAQ Subsystem Manager (SU-HEPL):

Responsible for the development and deliv-ery of the instrument data acquisition systemin accordance with the subsystem specifica-tions and within schedule and resource com-mitments. Serves as a member of the SSACand the IDT. Requirements for the positionare comprehensive technical knowledge ofdata acquisition systems for scientific flightinstruments; ability to plan, organize, imple-ment, and integrate a complex technicalproject; ability to communicate effectively.

• NRL DAQ Task Manager: At NRL, the TaskManager has overall responsibility for NRLtasks relating to the DAQ subsystem.

• NRL DAQ Engineer: Will assure the day-to-day engineering coordination of the NRLtasks and will report to the NRL DAQ TaskManager.

1.1.4.6 Grid, Integration and TestSU-SLAC is responsible for the planning, man-aging, and implementation of the Integration andTest plans for the flight instrument. Grid respon-sibilities include managing all engineering sub-contracts with Lockheed-Martin Advanced



Technology Center (LM-ATC), and workingwith the System Engineering team to providedesign integration function for the instrument.Integration responsibilities include developmentand fabrication of all Mechanical Ground Sup-port Equipment (MGSE) for integration.

SU-HEPL will develop the detailed func-tional test protocols and Electrical Ground Sup-port Equipment (EGSE) for the flight instrument.Working in conjunction with the Electrical Sys-tems Engineer and the DAQ subsystem manager,the electrical test engineering team will developand execute acceptance functional test proce-dures that will verify all requirements.

GSFC will manage and coordinate all instru-ment integration for the suborbital flight.Key Positions:

• I&T Manager (SU-SLAC): Responsible fordeveloping and maintaining procedures andschedules for the instrument I&T phase. Thisincludes electrical and mechanical integra-tion and the instrument environmental testprogram. Reviews the I&T schedules foreach instrument subsystem that are devel-oped by the subsystem managers. Workswith the GSFC Project Office and S/C con-tractor to develop the test program for thecombined instrument and S/C. DevelopsMGSE and EGSE requirements. Require-ments for the position are a demonstratedexperience in integrating and testing a com-plex instrument, an ability to plan and orga-nize multiple disciplines, and a systemsengineering understanding of the missionrequirements.

1.1.4.7 Instrument Operations Center (IOC)SU-HEPL is responsible for managing the devel-opment and operation of the IOC, as well asdeveloping requirements and testing IOC soft-ware.

SU-SLAC is responsible for developing andtesting level-1 data processing software, and forproviding the physical facilities for the IOC, andcomputer and network infrastructure and supportpersonnel to install, operate, and maintain it.Key Positions:• Instrument Operations Center Manager (SU-

HEPL): Work with the I&T Manager in thedevelopment of all I&T software and func-

tional test protocols. Develop operationssoftware, and establish IOC. Requirementsfor the position include familiarity and expe-rience with spacecraft operating principles,and a background in on-orbit instrument ormission operations.

1.1.4.8 Education and Public OutreachSonoma State University (SSU) is responsiblefor managing and implementing the Educationand Public Outreach Program.Key Positions:• Education and Public Outreach Coordinator

(SSU): Responsible for the execution of theEducation and Public Outreach Program (E/PO) of the GLAST LAT program. Require-ments for this position are experience in theeducation of the public, particularly students,in the world of physics and space scienceand the ability to communicate clearly.

1.1.5 Experience and Capabilities of Team Member Organizations

Table 1.1.3 summarizes the responsibilities andrelevant experience of each team member insti-tution with instrument hardware or softwareresponsibilities. 1.1.5.1 Stanford UniversityStanford University is a world-renownedresearch university located in Stanford, Califor-nia. It has conducted research in high-energyparticle physics for more than 40 years, begin-ning with pioneering research by W. W. Hansenthat led to the development of the first linearaccelerator. In 1967, a two-mile electron linearaccelerator was completed on the Stanford cam-pus, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center(SU-SLAC), a national laboratory facility, wascommissioned. Since its inception, SU-SLAC hasbeen managed by Stanford University for theDepartment of Energy. SLAC has conductedresearch at the forefront of high-energy physics,with three Nobel Prizes in Physics awarded toSLAC scientists for their work. Recently, SLACcompleted the PEP-II B-Factory, a new Asym-metric electron-positron collider, and a largeparticle detector known as BABAR, for conduct-ing research on weak decays of heavy quarks.Both PEP-II and BABAR are large internationalprojects that were successfully managed and arecurrently operated by SLAC.



SU-SLAC also helped in the development ofthe Unconventional Stellar Array (USA) X-raytelescope, and is currently involved in the dataanalysis.

SU-SLAC has also been strongly involved inDOE’s education and outreach programs, pio-neering science teacher training and hands-onsummer workshops, as well as ongoing develop-ment of both virtual and physical visitor out-reach centers.

The SU-HEPL located on the Stanford cam-pus, has managed and/or built several flightinstruments during the past 20 years. The calo-

rimeter for the Energetic Gamma-Ray Experi-ment Telescope (EGRET) was built at SU-HEPL.The EGRET instrument was calibrated, beforeintegration with the CGRO S/C, at SLAC. Severalmembers of the EGRET Instrument team at Stan-ford University, including the IPI on this pro-posal, are members of the GLAST LAT team.Furthermore, SU-HEPL was involved with boththe Michelson-Doppler Imager (MDI) instru-ment on SOHO, and the Confined Helium Exper-iment (CHEX) recently flown on the SpaceShuttle.

Table 1.1.3: Institutional ResponsibilitiesInstitution(s) Areas of Responsibility Relevant Experience

SU-SLAC Management of GLAST LAT project Instrument systems engineering, electrical systems engineeringTracker subsystem mechanical design, construction, testing, integrationSoftware managementGrid developmentInstrument integration and testLevel-1 data processingPerformance and Safety AssuranceDAQ engineering support

Management and construction of many large particle physics accelerators and experiments; most recently PEP II, BABAR, SLDUSA/ARGOS

SU-HEPL DAQ Subsystem development; Inst. Ops. Ctr. EGRET, GP-B, CHeX, SOHO/MDI

SSU Education and Public Outreach Program EUVE, GSFC LHEA E/PO, Swift

GSFCACD Subsystem; thermal blanket/ micrometeorite shield;Instrument Scientist

EGRET, RXTE, BBXRT, SWIFT, ACE, ZEUS

NRLDAQ/CPU, DAQ/DSF, S/C Interface Unit; calorimeter digital electronics; calorimeter integration and test

OSSE, USA, SOHO/LASCO, YOHKOH/BCS

FRANCECEA/DAPNIA

IN2P3/France

Calorimeter analog front-end photo-diodes and electronics readout; management of French effort

Calorimeter module mechanical design and assembly; calorimeter & inst. simulation

INTEGRAL, Sigma-GRANAT, COS-B, Gamma-1, ISO, XMM, LHC/CMS

LHC/CMS, CAT, Celeste, BABAR

KTH, Stockholm University

Calorimeter CsI crystals AMANDA, CAPRICE

UCSCTracker Subsystem: electronics, mechanical design, assembly, testing

SLD, BABAR, ATLAS, ZEUS, Milagro

JGC, Japan: Tracker: Silicon-strip detectors

ASCA, Astro-ECANGAROOCDF, SSC-SCDGINGA, ASCA, YOKOH, Astro-E

INFN, ItalyTracker: Silicon-strip ladders and tracker tray assembly

AMS, BABAR, ALEPH, DELPHI, SLD, CMS



1.1.5.2 Sonoma State University (SSU)Sonoma State University brings strong experi-ence in NASA education and public outreachprograms. This includes participating in out-reach programs for GSFC’s LHEA, and involve-ment in the SWIFT E/PO program.1.1.5.3 Goddard Space Flight Center

(GSFC)Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC) Labora-tory for High Energy Astrophysics (LHEA) hashad extensive experience designing and buildingsuccessful X-ray, gamma-ray, and cosmic-raytelescopes for space flight applications. InLHEA, a broad program of experimental and the-oretical research is conducted in all phases ofastrophysics associated with high-energy parti-cle and quanta produced in the interactions withtheir environments. Experiments are designed,built, tested and flown on balloons, rockets,Earth satellites and deep space probes. Theresulting data are analyzed and interpreted byLaboratory scientists and their associates in thelarger high-energy astrophysics community.Laboratory scientists have developed a broadrange of instrumentation including quantum cal-orimeters and thin-foil grazing incidence opticsfor X-ray spectroscopy, imaging detectors forhigh-energy gamma-rays, CdZnTe and isotropi-cally enriched germanium detectors for gamma-ray line spectroscopy, and superconducting mag-net spectrometers for energetic particle studies.

Of particular relevance to the GLAST mis-sion, LHEA was the lead organization for theEGRET experiment on CGRO and the projectlead for the CGRO mission. LHEA scientistsdesigned the particle-tracking detector (sparkchamber) for EGRET and have led the EGRETinstrument operations team that included scien-tists from Stanford University. This breadth ofexperience is available to the GLAST LAT team.These programs are particularly relevant to theGLAST LAT development program in that theyrepresent the capabilities of the LHEA that willdesign and produce the ACD subsystem for theGLAST LAT and will coordinate the multi-wave-length observations that the LAT science pro-gram requires.

1.1.5.4 Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)The Naval Research Laboratory is the Navy'scorporate laboratory. NRL conducts a broadly-based multidisciplinary program of scientificresearch and advanced technological develop-ment directed toward maritime applications ofnew and improved materials, techniques, equip-ment, system, and ocean, atmospheric, and spacesciences and related technologies. NRL wascommissioned in 1923 by Congress for theDepartment of the Navy. Today it is a field com-mand under the Chief of Naval Research and hasapproximately 3,300 personnel (over 1900research staff—nearly half of these PhD's) whoaddress basic research issues concerning theNavy's environment of sea, sky, and space.

NRL has conducted basic research anddevelopment in the space sciences for over fivedecades. The Space Science Division (SSD) wasformed in the 1960s and has executed pioneeringspace experiments in the areas of upper atmo-spheric, solar, and astronomical research forNASA, DoD, and other agencies. Currently,NRL’s SSD designed and operates the OrientedScintillation Spectrometer Experiment (OSSE)for NASA’s Compton Gamma Ray Observatory(CGRO), LASCO on the SOHO mission, BCS forthe YOHKOH mission, and supports the SolarUltraviolet Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SUSIM)for NASA’s Upper Atmospheric Research Satel-lite (UARS) and the Atmospheric Laboratory forApplication and Science (ATLAS) missions. SSDdeveloped three experiments, each produced atvery low cost, for the Advanced Research andGeophysical Observation Satellite (ARGOS),launched in February 1999 by the U.S. Air ForceSpace Test Program (STP). One of these experi-ments, the NRL-801 (USA) Experiment containsthe DOD’s first testbed for comparison of hard-ware and software techniques for computing inspace. The techniques applied in the testbed aredirectly applicable to the GLAST data acquisi-tion system. NRL operates the Background DataCenter (BDC) maintaining background phenom-enology data collected by DoD programs. TheSpace Science Division is also supported byNRL’s Naval Center for Space Technology thatbuilt and launched the CLEMENTINE spacecraftin less than 25 months, demonstrating a success-



ful implementation of the fast and inexpensiveparadigm for small- and medium-sized missions.These past programs demonstrate the technicalexpertise, management skills and array ofresources available within the GLAST team atNRL’s Space Science Division, to fulfill its lead-ership responsibilities in the development andfabrication of the GLAST calorimeter subsystemand its key responsibilities in the development ofhardware and software for the GLAST dataacquisition subsystem.1.1.5.5 Service d’ Astrophysique,

Laboratorie du Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique(CEA)

The Département d’Astrophysique, de Physiquedes Particules, de Physique Nucléaire etd’Instrumentation Associée (DAPNIA) of theCommissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) atSaclay conducts a broad program of experimen-tal and theoretical research in astrophysics, parti-cle physics, and nuclear physics. InsideDAPNIA, the Service d’Astrophysique (SAp) isa renowned space astrophysics laboratory. Itsresearch interests cover high-energy astrophys-ics and compact objects, star formation and evo-lution, large-scale structures and cosmology,with a particular emphasis for several years on amulti-wavelength interpretation of the sources.The discovery of micro-quasars illustrates thesuccess of this approach. SAp has long beenengaged in space-based and ground-basedinstrumentation. Its successful contributions tohigh-energy satellites (e.g. HEAO3-C2, COS-B,GAMMA-1, GRANAT-SIGMA, Ulysses,XMM, INTEGRAL) and telescopes (ASGAT,CAT), to infrared space detectors (ISO-ISO-CAM, CASSINI-CIRS) and telescopes (VLT-VIZIR), to SOHO-GOLF, has largely contrib-uted to the laboratory international image. Thisbreadth of experience is available to the LATteam. SAp has adopted FIRST and GLAST as itshighest priority programs for the near future.The laboratory receives strong support from thelarge technical groups of DAPNIA. The detectordevelopment group (SED), who designed andbuilt many high-energy particle detectors andcalorimeters, will be part of the LAT effort, aswell as the microelectronics group (SEI) whohave developed DMILL technology and have

long designed full custom ASIC's for experi-mental physics and space applications. Theinstrumentation developments take advantage ofa long-established and close collaborationbetween scientists and engineers, as well asacross the three disciplines of DAPNIA.1.1.5.6 Ecole Polytechnique, Saclay FranceInside the Centre National de la Recherche Sci-entifique (CNRS), the Institut de PhysiqueNucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3)has 16 laboratories in high-energy physicsamong which three are part of the LAT effort,namely, Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire desHautes Energies at Ecole Polytechnique(LPNHE-X), Physique Corpusculaire et Cos-mologie (PCC) at Collège de France, and Centred’Etudes Nucléaires de Bordeaux Gradignan(CENBG) at the University of Bordeaux. Theselaboratories have had a major impact on theCERN activities since the sixties. Famous resultswere obtained on hadrons with the hydrogenbubble chamber of B. Gregory and on WeakCurrents with the Gargamelle heavy liquidchamber. In recent years, their activities coveredQuark-Gluon search with NA-38 at CERN-SPS,e-p collisions on H1 at DESY, e+-e- collisions atLEP (ALEPH & DELPHI). They currently par-ticipate to the BaBAR experiment at SLAC andto construction work for LHC, in particular forthe lead-tungstate crystal calorimeter of CMS.Non-accelerator activities include the construc-tion of the underground Fréjus laboratory to runa proton lifetime experiment and, presently, aneutrino experiment, NEMO. More directlyrelated to the GLAST mission, the three labora-tories have recently developed and are nowoperating two atmospheric Cherenkov tele-scopes, CAT and CELESTE, at Thémis, in theFrench Pyrénées. They were joined in this effortby colleagues from CEA/DAPNIA. The cameraof CAT has achieved unprecedented perfor-mance and CELESTE has opened a new windowbetween 60 GeV and 200 GeV.1.1.5.7 Royal Institute of Technology,

Stockholm Observatory, & Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

There are three groups in the Stockholm areaparticipating in the LAT collaboration. They arethe Stockholm Observatory group (the Univer-



sity’s astronomy department) under Prof RolandSvensson, the Stockholm University groupunder Prof Lars Bergström and the Royal Insti-tute of Technology group under Prof Per Carl-son. The three groups will geographically join atthe new Stockholm Physics Center and thereform a very cohesive team. These groups areinvolved in high-energy astrophysics with a cur-rent activity in gamma ray bursts, both observa-tionally and theoretically. They are involved inthe Integral satellite mission, in close connectionwith experimental groups, in particular with theAMANDA neutrino experiment. Current activi-ties include estimating the contribution of darkmatter supersymmetric particles to the gamma-ray flux and estimates of detection possibilitieswith GLAST. The group of Per Carlson is anexperimental group strong in instrumentation.The group has designed, constructed and imple-mented a variety of Ring Imaging Cherenkovdetectors in cosmic-ray magnetic spectrometers,including the first charge-one sensitive RICHused in cosmic ray research. They are the main analysis point of the CAPRICE experiments with recent results on atmospheric muons.1.1.5.8 University of California at Santa

Cruz, Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics (UCSC)

The Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics(SCIPP) at the University of California at SantaCruz (UCSC) has extensive experience withlarge-scale, silicon-strip detector based particle-tracking detectors, and has collaborated closelywith SU-SLAC on several projects, the mostrecent being the BABAR detector.

SCIPP is one of the ORU’s (OrganizedResearch Units) funded by the University ofCalifornia. It is housed on the UC campus inSanta Cruz, California, close to its sister institu-tion, Lick Observatory, which allows close sci-entific and technical interactions between thetwo institutions. In its 20 years of operation,SCIPP has contributed significantly to scientificand technical progress, not only in accelerator-based elementary particle physics, but also inparticle astrophysics theory and experiment(SCIPP provides the largest group participatingin the large air-shower detector, Milagro, at LosAlamos). SCIPP has built a reputation for its

expertise in instrumentation. In addition, SCIPPpersonnel have held important managerial posi-tions in a number of large scientific constructionprojects.

UCSC’s involvement with silicon microstripdetectors began in the 1980’s with major contri-butions to the construction of the first silicon-strip detector system used in a colliding beamexperiment. Since then, SCIPP has introducedmany novel technologies into the field of sili-con-strip detector systems, especially low-power, low-noise and radiation-hard ASICs. Inall cases, the ASICs and electronics moduleshave been designed and tested in the SCIPPMicroelectronics Laboratory and then deliveredto the experiment. This includes the Zeus projectat DESY in Hamburg, the BABAR project atSLAC and the ATLAS project at CERN, as wellas the development of the silicon-strip readoutelectronics for the GLAST LAT.

UCSC’s personnel have contributed to soft-ware development and management in severallarge collaborations. Expertise exists in trackingcode development (Mark3, Mark2, SLD, Zeus,BABAR) and the overall organization of a largecomputing effort (SLD, BABAR).

UCSC also has an active education and out-reach program for teachers and undergraduatesfrom groups under-represented in science.1.1.5.9 Instituto Nazionale di Fisica

Nucleare (INFN), ItalyThe Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN)has several laboratories which are worldrenowned for their expertise in instrumentdesign, fabrication and testing. They have beenespecially active in the development of large-scale silicon microstrip detector systems, forexample in the ALEPH and L3 experiments incollaboration with CERN, in the BABAR experi-ment in collaboration with SU-SLAC, and on theAMS mission recently flown on the shuttle.1.1.5.10 University of Tokyo, Institute for

Cosmic-Ray Research (ICRR), Institute for Space and Astronautical Science, and Hiroshima University

The University of Tokyo is the leading researchuniversity in Japan. It has conducted research inall fields of science since its establishment in themid 19th century. Many world-class research



laboratories in particle, nuclear, space, and astro-physical sciences were first founded by its fac-ulty on one of its several campuses. TheNational Accelerator Lab. (KEK), Inst. for Spaceand Astron. Sci. (ISAS), National AstronomicalObservatory (NAO), Institute of Cosmic RayResearch (ICRR) with Kamioka Neutrino Facil-ity are among them. The Physics Departmentnow leads many ambitious R/D projects inJapan, US, and Europe. ICRR hosts two largeinternational projects, the Super-Kamiokandeneutrino experiment and the CANGAROOgamma-ray telescope array in Australia. ISAShas been a world research center in satellite-based science research and has successfullyhosted international scientific missions such asGINGA, ASCA, and YOKOH. The Institute isabout to launch its next international mission,Astro-E.

Hiroshima University was established asone of the two elite "Ecole Normals" in Japan.Its Physics Department has played a leading rolein silicon strip detector development for acceler-ator experiments in the US and Europe

1.1.6 Commitment and Experience of Key Personnel

1.1.6.1 Key Positions• Instrument Principal Investigator: Prof.

Peter Michelson of Stanford University hasthe overall responsibility for the proposedinvestigation and has the decision-makingauthority for the proper conduct of theGLAST LAT investigation. GLAST is Prof.Michelson’s principal responsibility andinterest and has his full attention for theresearch portion of his time (67% of full-time; the remaining time is divided betweenteaching responsibilities, including supervi-sion of graduate students who will work onthe GLAST program, and university &departmental responsibilities). Prof. Michel-son has more than 10 years of experience inspace science, including the past 9 years as aco-investigator and the Stanford Universitylead on the EGRET instrument team. He hasa Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford University(1979) and currently holds faculty appoint-ments at both the Physics Department, Stan-ford University and at SLAC.

• Instrument Project Manager: William Alt-house is responsible for the day-to-day exe-cution of the GLAST LAT design,construction, testing, and delivery. Authorityof the IPM is delegated from the IPI. Mr. Alt-house will be responsible for maintainingdevelopment of the GLAST LAT within thecost and schedule plan baselined in this pro-posal and as modified during the Formula-tion Phase. Mr. Althouse served as ProjectManager or Deputy Project Manager for sci-ence instruments on the International SolarPolar Mission, Voyager, International Sun-Earth Explorer 3, and Interplanetary Moni-toring Platforms 7 and 8; he also served asChief Engineer for the Laser InterferometerGravitational- Wave Observatory Projectduring the concept and formulation phases,responsible for management, control andaccountability of LIGO configuration, sched-ule, cost, quality assurance and safety. Mr.Althouse will be dedicated 100% time to thisproject.

• Instrument Technical Manager: Prof.Tuneyoshi Kamae is responsible for coordi-nating the technical development of the LATinstrument, and he chairs the InstrumentDesign Teams that report to the IPM. Hisauthority is delegated from the IPM. Prof.Kamae has more than 25 years of experiencein experimental elementary particle physicsand 10 years of experience in high-energyastrophysics. He is the Principal Investigatorof the hard X-ray experiment soon to belaunched on Astro E. Professor Kamae iscurrently Professor of Physics at the Univer-sity of Tokyo and will be Professor at SLAC,beginning April 1, 2000. During the entiredevelopment of the GLAST LAT, Kamae willspend 100% time on the project, with mostof the time at SU-SLAC. While at SU-SLAChe will devote 50% of his time in the role ofITM, and 50% time in the management of theGLAST science research functional group.He will also be the Lead Japanese Scientiston the project until April 2000, at which timeProf. Ohsugi will become the principal con-tact in Japan. Prof. Kamae has a Ph.D.



degree in Physics from Princeton University(1968).

1.1.6.2 Key Personnel at Stanford University• Instrument System Engineer. Tim Thurston

is the acting system engineer. He reports tothe IPM and is responsible for the overallflow-down of requirements to the subsystemlevel for the instrument; for tracking ofrequirements and margins; and for establish-ing performance specifications, verificationand test plans, and interface documents. TheISE will be 100% time on the GLAST project.Thurston is the SLAC Research DivisionChief Engineer, and has more than 25 yearsof project experience in both high-energyphysics and space systems, including work atthe Kennedy Space Center, in the SDC exper-iment at the SSC, and in aerospace andnuclear testing support systems. He receiveda NASA Team Achievement Award in 1997.An offer has already been made to a highlyqualified individual to join SLAC staff toserve as the full-time, permanent GLASTInstrument System Engineer.

• Electronics System Engineer. Dr. GuntherHaller reports to the ISE and is responsiblefor the flow down of requirements concern-ing electronics, power distribution, and EMI,to the subsystem level for the instrument; fortracking of requirements and margins inthese areas; establishing electronics perfor-mance specifications, verification and testplans, and electronics interface documentsDr. Haller was electrical systems engineerfor the SLD and BABAR high-energy physicsparticle detectors. Dr. Haller will devote100% of his time to the project.

• Software System Manager. Dr. RichardDubois reports to the ISE and is responsiblefor the overall coordination of softwaredevelopment activities and for the develop-ment and execution of the SQA plan includ-ing software configuration management. Dr.Dubois will devote 100% of his time to theproject.

• Integration & Test Manager / Grid Man-ager. Mr. Martin Nordby reports to the IPMand is responsible for developing and main-

taining procedures and schedules for theinstrument I&T phase including electricaland mechanical integration and the instru-ment environmental test program. Mr. Nor-dby is also the manager of the instrumentgrid development. He brings 15 years ofexperience in the development of mechanicalsystems for high-energy physics detectorsand accelerators, including cryogenics andultra-high vacuum technologies. He recentlycompleted management of the constructionand installation of the PEP-II interactionregion, and integration of the PEP-II colliderwith the BABAR detector. Mr. Nordby willdevote 100% of his time to the project.

• Instrument Operations Center Manager.Dr. Scott Williams reports to the IPM and isresponsible for the development and deliveryof the Instrument Operations Center and forsupporting instrument operations and dataacquistion during integration, test and flight.Dr. Williams has 14 years of experience withspacecraft operations, was a Co-Investigatorand Operations Director for the Shuttle Elec-trodynamic Tether System experiment onSTS-46 and STS-75, developed the MissionOperations Plan for the Michelson DopplerImager on SOHO, and managed MDI launchand on-orbit commissioning from the SOHOExperiment Operations Facility at GSFC. Dr.Williams will devote 100% of his time to theproject.

• Data Acquisition System (DAQ) Manager.Dr. Roger Williamson reports to the IPM andis responsible for the development and deliv-ery of the LAT instrument data acquisitionsystem. Dr. Williamson has 30 years ofexperience in space flight related workincluding Spacelab 1 and 2, and, mostrecently, he has been manager of electronicsand the DAQ for the Confined HeliumExperiment (CheX) that was launched inNovember 1997 on the shuttle. Dr. William-son will be 100% time on the GLAST LATproject. Dr. Williamson has been the DAQtechnology development manager during thetechnology development program.



1.1.6.3 Key Personnel at Sonoma State University

• Education and Public Outreach Coordina-tor. Prof. Lynn Cominsky reports to the IPIand is responsible for the GLAST/LAT E/POprogram. Dr. Cominsky is Professor ofPhysics and Astronomy at Sonoma StateUniversity (SSU), and has served as Chair ofthe Public Affairs Working Group for theNASA GLAST Facility Science Team for thepast two years. As part of this work, (andwith the help of SSU undergraduate physicsstudent Tim Graves) she created the GLASToutreach Web site: http://www-glast.sonoma.edu. She is also a member ofthe E/PO team for Swift, a gamma-ray burstMIDEX mission that will be launched in2003. An author of over 45 research papersin high-energy astronomy, in 1993 Prof.Cominsky was named the Outstanding Pro-fessor at Sonoma State University and theCalifornia Professor of the Year by theCouncil for Advancement and Support ofEducation. Cominsky is also Deputy PressOfficer for the American Astronomical Soci-ety, Press Officer for the AAS High EnergyAstrophysics Division, and the PI on SSU'ssuccessful "Space Mysteries" NASA LEARN-ERS proposal (developed with Dr. LauraWhitlock.) Prior to joining the SSU faculty,Cominsky managed various parts of NASA'sExtreme Ultra-Violet Explorer satelliteproject at the University of California Berke-ley's Space Sciences Laboratory, serving asSoftware, Operations and Data Analysisgroup Administrator and the Science Pay-load Development Manager. In this latterposition, she supervised over 70 engineers,technicians, scientists and programmers, andcontrolled a multi-million dollar yearly bud-get. Prof. Cominsky will devote 50% of hertime to the project.

1.1.6.4 Key Personnel at Goddard Space Flight Center

• Instrument Scientist. Dr. Steven Ritz, Labo-ratory for High Energy Astrophysics at God-dard Space Flight Center, reports directly tothe IPI and is responsible for monitoring theflight instrument design and construction;

for coordinating the necessary instrumentand science simulations to support theseactivities. Dr. Ritz will advise the IPI on allmatters that affect the scientific performanceof the instrument. Dr. Ritz will devote 100%time to the GLAST project. Dr. Ritz receiveda Ph.D. degree in Physics from the Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison (1988) and wasAssociate Professor of Physics at ColumbiaUniversity from 1990 to 1998. Dr. Ritz hasextensive experience with high-energy parti-cle physics detectors. He was responsible forthe design, development, and production ofmajor elements of the readout and DAQ sys-tem for the ZEUS experiment at HERA, theworld’s only lepton-hadron collider. He alsohas extensive experience with data analysisin a wide variety of science topics.

• Anticoincidence Detector (ACD) Manager.Dr. Jonathan Ormes, Laboratory for HighEnergy Astrophysics at Goddard SpaceFlight Center, reports to the IPM and isresponsible for the development and deliveryof the instrument ACD subsystem. Dr. Ormeswill devote 60% of his time to the project.Dr. Ormes is currently the Project Scientistfor the Advanced Composition Explorer(ACE) mission.

1.1.6.5 Key Personnel at the Naval Research Laboratory

• Calorimeter Manager. Dr. W. Neil Johnsonreports to the IPM and is responsible for thedevelopment and delivery of the instrumentcalorimeter subsystem. Dr. Johnson has beenthe manager of calorimeter technologydevelopment. For matters concerning thecalorimeter, he is the principal technicalinterface to the calorimeter effort in France.Dr. Johnson has over 30 years of experiencein design, fabrication, and operation ofgamma-ray experiments for space-basedplatforms. As project scientist, he wasresponsible for the design, implementation,and operation of the OSSE experiment onCGRO. Dr. Johnson received a Ph.D. degreein Physics from Rice University (1973). Dr.Johnson will devote 65% of his time to theproject.



• NRL DAQ Task Manager. Dr. Kent S.Wood reports to the DAQ Subsystem Man-ager and is resonsible for the NRL DAQtasks. Dr. Wood has been responsible for theNRL development of the DAQ CPU duringthe technology development and demonstra-tion phase. He is currently the PI on the USAExperiment flying on the ARGOS satellite.This experiment includes the first DOD test-bed for space computing. Dr. Wood willdevote 65% of his time to the LAT project.

• NRL DAQ Engineer. Dr. Michael Lovelletteoversees the day-to-day engineering coordi-nation of the NRL DAQ tasks and reports toDr. Wood. Dr. Lovellette will devote 80% ofhis time to the LAT project.

1.1.6.6 Key Personnel in France• French Lead Scientist. Prof. Isabelle Gre-

nier, CEA/DAPNIA and University of Paris,is the prime point of contact between the IPMand Calorimeter subsystem manager, and theFrench GLAST team, and has overall respon-sibility for the delivery of components of theGLAST calorimeter as specified in the MOAand SOWs pertaining to the calorimeter.Prof. Grenier will also serve on the GLASTSWG and is a member of the Senior ScientistAdvisory Committee. Prof. Grenier willdevote 80% of her time to the project.

• French Deputy Lead Scientist. Prof. PatrickFleury, IN2P3/Ecole Polytechnique, isresponsible for the scientific oversight of thetechnical development work in France. Prof.Fleury is a member of the Senior ScientistAdvisory Committee. Prof. Fleury has morethan 30 years experience in experimentalparticle physics. He started both the CAT andCELESTE projects in Europe and is theformer director of the LPNHE laboratory atthe Ecole Polytechnique. Prof. Fleury willdevote 80% of his time to the project.

• French Project Manager. Dr. Philippe Lav-ocat, CEA-Saclay, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the GLAST LAT calo-rimeter tasks in France. He reports to Prof.Grenier and to the Calorimeter Manager onmatters concerning the calorimeter develop-ment. Dr. Lavocat will devote 100% of histime to the project.

1.1.6.7 Key Personnel in Sweden• Lead Swedish Scientist. Prof. Per Carlson,

Royal Institute of Technology, is the primepoint of contact between the IPM and Calo-rimeter subsystem manager and the SwedishGLAST team. Prof. Carlson is responsible forthe procurement of the CsI crystals for thecalorimeter subsystem. Prof. Carlson willdevote the remaining 25% of his time to theproject.

1.1.6.8 Key Personnel at the University of California at Santa Cruz

• Tracker Manager. Prof. Robert Johnsonreports to the IPM and is responsible for thedevelopment and delivery of the instrumenttracker subsystem. Prof. Johnson has beenthe tracker technology development man-ager. Prof. Johnson has more than 10 yearsof experience working on large particlephysics experiments. In 1986 he worked onthe design and construction of the large time-projection chamber for the ALEPH experi-ment at CERN. More recently, he played acritical role in the development of the read-out electronics ASIC for the silicon-strip ver-tex detector of the BABAR experiment,collaborating with Lawrence BerkeleyNational Lab and INFN, Italy. Prof. Johnsonreceived a Ph.D. degree in Physics fromStanford University (1986). Prof. Johnsonwill devote 75% of his time to the project,with the remaining 25% time devoted toteaching.

1.1.6.9 Key Personnel in ItalyItalian Lead Scientist. Prof. Guido Barbiellini isthe prime point of contact between the IPM andTracker subsystem manager and the ItalianGLAST team, and has overall responsibility andscientific oversight of the technical developmentwork in Italy and for delivery of components ofthe GLAST tracker as specified in the MOA andSOWs pertaining to the tracker. Prof. Barbielliniwill also serve on the Senior Scientist AdvisoryCommittee and will devote 50% time to theGLAST project. Italian Project Manager. Responsible for theday-to-day management of the GLAST LATtracker tasks in Italy, and reports to the Tracker



Manager. Pending award of contract, a projectmanager will be appointed. 1.1.6.10 Key Personnel in Japan• Japanese Lead Scientist. Prof. Tuneyoshi

Kamae, currently represents the JapaneseGLAST collaboration (JGC) and is the primepoint of contact between the IPM andTracker subsystem manager and the JGC. Heis responsible for the scientific oversight ofthe technical development work in Japan andfor the delivery of detector components ofthe GLAST tracker as specified in the MOAsand SOWs pertaining to the tracker. Begin-ning April, 2000, Prof. Kamae will also bethe Instrument Technical Manager and holdsa Professor position at SU-SLAC. At thattime, Professor Ohsugi will become theprime point of contact with the JGC.

• Tracker Detector Scientist. Prof. TakahashiOhsugi, Hiroshima University, is responsiblefor the day-to-day technical oversight of sili-con detector development and production inJapan. Prof. Ohsugi was the subsystem man-ager for the DAQ and trigger system for theTRISTAN-VENUS experiment at KEK andwas deputy manager of the SDC silicon cen-tral tracking system for the SSC. Recently,he was in-charge of the development and

production of silicon-strip detectors for theFermiLab CDF experiment vertex detectorupgrade. He will devote 50% time to theGLAST project.

1.1.7 Financial and Contractual Relationships

The financial and contractual relationshipsamong the GLAST LAT team organizations andcontractors are summarized in Table 1.1.4 Rela-tionships with team institutions are largely gov-erned by MOAs. These have served past projectswell by establishing concise statements of workand scope of responsibility for each team institu-tion, along with budget and management author-i t ies. SU-SLAC has recent experience inestablishing such MOAs on other projects withall of the GLAST team institutions.

1.1.8 International Exchange of Information and Materials

The development, fabrication, and operation ofthe LAT instrument and science investigation asdefined by this proposal will adhere to all appli-cable U.S. laws and regulations concerning theimport and export of technical information andmaterials. Compliance with all applicable lawsand regulations is written into all MOAs withforeign collaboration members.

Table 1.1.4: Financial and Contractual RelationshipsOrganization Contractual

Relationship(s)AssumedStart Date Comments

Stanford UniversityContract from NASAContract from DOE

April 1, 2000 April 1, 2000

As specified in NASA AODOE participation governed by Stanford/SLAC contract with DOE

Sonoma State University Subcontract from SU April 1, 2000

Goddard Space Flight Center MOA with SU April 1, 2000 Draft MOA exists defining reporting requirements

Naval Research Laboratory MOA with SU April 1, 2000

Draft MOA exists defining reporting requirements; funding of effort through NASA Defense Purchase Request (Economy Act Order)

CEA/DAPNIA-(Saclay) & IN2P3 MOA with SU-SLAC May 15, 2000 Draft MOA exists; will be finalized within 6 weeks of selection

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm University, and Stockholm Observatory

MOA with SU-SLAC May 15, 2000 Draft MOA exists; will be finalized within 6 weeks of selection

University of California at Santa Cruz MOA with SU-SLAC April 1, 2000Draft MOA exists; will be finalized within 6 weeks of selection

University of Tokyo, Institute for Cosmic-Ray Research, Hiroshima University, & Institute for Space and Astronautical Research

MOA with SU-SLAC May 15, 2000 Draft MOA exists; will be finalized within 6 weeks of selection

INFN and ASI MOA with SU-SLAC May 15, 2000 Draft MOA exists; will be finalized within 6 weeks of selection

Lockheed-Martin ATCSubcontract from SU-SLAC

May 15, 2000



1.2 MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND PLANS

The GLAST Instrument Project is managed byway of a heirarchical WBS, with all work pack-age budgets and schedules captured in an inte-grated project schedule (IPS). System andsubsystem technical requirements and parame-ters are baselined and managed, with configura-tion control handled by a change control board(CCB). The CCB reviews and controls all pro-posed changes of scope, requirements, design,and cost and schedule, and authorizes imple-mentation of these changes in the Project Man-agement Control System (PMCS).

These management processes are detailed inthe following sections.

1.2.1 Decision-Making ProcessesThe WBS and organization structure define thelimits of individual authority and responsibilityrelative to cost, schedule, and technical require-ments. At the top level, the Instrument PrincipalInvestigator, Instrument Project Manager, andthe Instrument Technical Manager jointly estab-lish overall project goals including budget allo-cations, program master schedules and the top-level program technical requirements. The IPI isthe final authority regarding changes that affectproject scope while the IPM is the final authorityon the allocation of overall resources, schedulesand requirements among the second level WBSelements. System and subsystem specifications,Interface Control Documents, program masterschedules and WBS budgets define the scope ofeach second level function. The subsystem man-ager has the authority to establish and maintaincost, schedule and requirements flow-downswithin the second level function so long as theydo not impact the master schedule critical path,increase budgeted expenditure requirementsabove budget limits, or impact requirementsestablished in the Specifications. The subsystemmanager establishes and controls the scope of allthird level WBS elements within the second levelWBS.

End item configuration, WBS master sched-ules and WBS budgets define the scope of eachthird level function. The WBS third level taskmanager has the authority to establish and main-

tain cost, schedule, and requirements flowdownswithin the third level function so long as they donot impact the master schedule critical path,increase budgeted expenditure requirementsabove the budget limits or impact requirementsestablished in the associated configuration enditem specification. The third level Task Managerestablishes and controls the scope of all fourthlevel WBS’s within the third level WBS. As theprogram progresses, it is recognized that revi-sions to requirements, schedules and budgetswill be necessary. As long as changes are withina particular WBS manager’s scope of responsi-bility, and externally imposed constraints(requirements, interfaces, schedule milestones,or the program critical path) are not impacted, noapproval is required of any “higher authority.”Coordination and feedback are assured as allchanges are recorded by the central PMCS andidentified at periodic program reviews.

The central theme of decision making in theLAT Project is that each key individual listedabove understands the roles and responsibilitiesof all other key individuals and has the necessaryknowledge, commitment and experience to coor-dinate appropriately with all other key individu-als on the program as necessary. This allowsdecisions to be made at the proper level with theminimum of unnecessary control. Responsive-ness of the program is thus improved and thecosts associated with formal approval processesare minimized.

Key decisions made by the LAT IPO will beregularly reviewed by the SLAC director anddirector of research as part of regularly sched-uled weekly meetings with the IPO (IPI, IPM, andITM).

Soon after contract award, a GLAST projectmanagement workshop will be held with empha-sis on the formulation-phase execution and prep-a r a t ion f o r r i g o r ou s p l a n n i ng o f t h eimplementation phase.

All WBS Level 3 managers and the IPM andproject controls will participate. The GSFCproject manager is encouraged to attend.

1.2.2 System Engineering & Integration

The LAT management process for instrumentdevelopment uses an intensive System Engineer-



ing activity to complete the Formulation Phase(Phase B) as depicted in Figure 1.2.1.The devel-opment approach utilizes all applicable designcriteria, analysis, support, test precedents, les-sons learned, environment and safety proceduresand a distributed collaborative engineeringmethodology. The emphasis during FormulationPhase is to maximize the science benefit in thefurther development of the instrument, to for-malize the products and processes needed todeliver the instrument and place them under con-figuration control, and to design to cost.

The ISE is responsible for performing thesystem trades, decomposition of requirements,developing GLAST Instrument System Specifi-cations and, in conjunction with subsystem engi-neering staffs, developing the subsystemspecifications and design verification plans andICDs between subsystems. All requirements willbe formalized, documented, traced, and verifiedwith a requirements traceability software tool.This will provide a flexible, responsive, easy-to-use capability that will assure that all require-ments are met and are traceable through the lifeof the mission.

Figure: 1.2.1: System Engineering Process through PDR

ScienceTeam

Rqmts.

I and TPlan

SACSRDSpec.

IDTRqmts.

SpaceCraftIRD

GSFCProjectTeam

RequirementsTraceability

AnalysisTrades

SimulationsConcepts

Tests

SubsystemDecomposition

Rqmts.

InstrumentPerformance

and VerificationSpecs

S-S Designand

SoftwareDesign

Subsystem andSoftware Perf.and Verification

Specs/ICD’s

BaselineDesign and

ConfigurationControl

Inst.PDR

Analysis and Trades – Updates

ICD’s S/C and Mission

Instrument Design

EM Test

Sub-orbital Test

EM Upgrade

Models and Test

PerformanceVerification Model

Beam Test

S-SSoftware

PDR’s

System Engineering

TechnologyDevelopment

Contract AwardApril 2000

June-2000I-SRR

Aug-2001I-PDR

Design Engineering 10-998509A42



The ISE is also responsible for performingthe design integration function. The ISE and histeam will assure that when the complete instru-ment is integrated, it will perform all the func-tions required of the entire system. This designintegration function includes defining all con-nectors and wiring harnesses, and flex cableswhich interconnect the subsystems, and connectthe instrument to the spacecraft. The ISE willalso define and control the telemetry and com-mand functions for the instrument. Operationalmodes with corresponding duty cycles andpower usage models will be developed.

The ISE will also develop and control theICDs between the instrument and spacecraft andinstrument and ground systems and missionoperations. As such, the ISE is the principleinterface during physical integration and testactivities.

Furthermore, the ISE has the primaryresponsibility for establishing technical inter-changes with the spacecraft supplier after awardof the spacecraft bus contract. In the early stagesof the program we will assist the spacecraft sup-plier in understanding bus/telescope interfacerequirements and developing the required Inter-face Control Documents. This contact will alsoinitiate the technical relationships needed duringspacecraft integration and launch operations.

The instrument system engineering andmanagement teams will participate in spacecraftdesign reviews to further ensure the correct flowof information and invite representatives fromthe spacecraft team to our reviews. Adjustmentsto requirements and schedules resulting from thereview process will be made in full-cooperationwith the spacecraft supplier and GSFC ProjectTeam.

We will support mission simulation testswith the integrated spacecraft from both the sup-plier facility and SU-SLAC. The relationshipsdeveloped with the spacecraft supplier duringintegration and test will contribute to successfulcollaboration during launch vehicle integrationactivities at the launch site, launch operations,and on-orbit checkout.

The IDT, chaired by the ITM, provides criti-cal support to the system engineering effort. Thisteam, composed of all subsystem and system-

level managers with direct hardware, software,or integration responsibilities, will be responsi-ble for assuring closure of all technical andimplementation issues. It will also serve as theprimary means by which conflicting require-ments or subsystem problems and issues areidentified and resolved. The IDT will meetweekly (via video conference) during Formula-tion and Implementation Phases of the instru-ment project. Action items from these meetingswill be recorded, maintained, and circulated bythe ISE.

The System Engineering activities duringImplementation Phase are depicted in Figure1.2.2. In support of the IPM, the ISE will alsostrive to control overall instrument developmentand implementation cost. The methods to beused by the ISE include:Value engineering• Capping the design effort, and designing to

cost• Emphasizing validation testing during pro-

cess development• Minimizing the use of engineering models• Reducing new technologies in the design.

The use of a distributed collaborative engi-neering process will play a key role in reducingthe cost and risk associated with implementingan instrument such as GLAST. This process willdraw on the past management experience of SU-SLAC, by using video-conferencing, strongproject-based management, and selective teammeetings to connect the geographically dis-persed teams. 1.2.2.1 Requirements DevelopmentThe primary sources for GLAST instrumentrequirements are:

• AO Flight Investigation and SRD require-ments

• GLAST Facility Science Definition Teamrequirements

• Science Working Group requirements• Instrument Design Team requirements• Space Craft Interface Requirements Docu-

ment• GSFC Project Team Requirements• Derived Requirements by each subsystem

The ISE is responsible for assuring that allrequirements are: 1) accurately defined (com-plete and unambiguous); 2) appropriately allo-



cated to the GLAST subsystem elements; 3)verified, thoroughly documented, and rigidlycontrolled by configuration management tech-niques.

All requirements will be documented on-line, allowing for rapid access throughout thegeographically distributed engineering team, forthe life of the mission. They will be stated inclear operational terms, allowing maximum flex-ibility to meet mission objectives. Throughoutthe life of the mission, changes to this documentmust adhere to the configuration managementprocess approved by the IPM & IPI (outlined inSect. 1.2.2.3).

To facilitate management of the systemengineering requirements, the IPO is currentlyevaluating six requirements management soft-ware tools. Prior to contract start, the assessmentwill be completed and a recommendation made

to the GSFC project office, so that compatibilitywith the GLAST mission requirements manage-ment tool is assured.

The Formulation Phase system engineeringprocess, as depicted in Figure 1.2.1, shows theflow of requirements decomposition leading tothe GLAST instrument Performance Specifica-tion and Verification Plan, the subsystem andsoftware performance specifications, and ICDs.Specifications will be developed which accu-rately define the minimum acceptable perfor-mance, allowing subsystem and elementengineering to develop design solutions.1.2.2.2 Technical Performance MetricsThe IDT will establish technical performancemetrics for instrument development during theFormulation Phase. These critical parameterswill be reviewed at the SRR (June 2000) and for-malized and placed under configuration control

Figure: 1.2.2: System Engineering Process through Implementation Phase

GSFCProjectTeam

Inst.CDR

Qual.Review

FinalAssy.

Review

SACRqmts.

IDTRqmts.

FinalAssy. Rev. IDR LRR FRR

SpaceCraft

Rqmts.

Rqmts.Verification

FinalizeVerificationSpecs andI & T Plan

FromI-PDR

Instr/S-SDetail

Design

EMUpgradesand Test

S-SCDR’s

Fab/Assy/Test

Qual. Unit

DesignRelease

Final Assy.Flt. Model

IandT

SpaceCraft

Integration

ReleaseLLI’s

System Engineering Design Engineering 10-998509A43

AVG-2001I-PDR

Implementation Phase



by the I-PDR (August 2001). These parameters,either directly measurable or derivable frommodeling of the instrument design, represent thekey performance requirements which must bemet to ensure that the mission objectives aremet.

The criteria for selection of a parameter forthe metrics list is that, if it exceeds a criticalvalue, it will result in impact to science, cost orschedule, requiring the implementation of adescope option, an increase to mission cost, or aslip in schedule to accommodate the variance.

The critical parameters are quantified todefine the seriousness of the problem. Theseparameters along with cost and schedule param-eters, will be monitored at a monthly projectcontrol meeting. At the time of submission ofthis proposal, the critical Technical PerformanceParameters are those shown in Table 1.2.1. Thecurrent value of the metric is shown along withthe peak or threshold requirements value for themetric. The “Trigger Point” is that point which,if exceeded, triggers an automatic review of theentire system by the IPM.

These system-level metrics are floweddown and budgeted to the subsystems by theIDT. All subsystem metric budgets are analyzedat the project control meeting, to ensure that anysubsystem problems are quickly identified andappropriate corrective actions are developedwith the subsystem manager.1.2.2.3 Configuration ManagementConfiguration Management (CM) is the processthrough which the GLAST LAT Project docu-ments the instrument’s functional and physicalcharacteristics during its lifecycle, controls

changes to those characteristics, and providesinformation on the state of change action.Figure 1.2.3 shows the configuration manage-ment flow to be implemented for the instrumentprojects. Configuration management providesthe current state and description and allowstraceability to all previous configurations as wellas the rationale for the changes. Our processallows all engineers to design to the same set ofrequirements, provides visibility into the designinterfaces, and supports the production of adesign that meets the requirements.

Table 1.2.1: Critical Technical Performance Metrics at Proposal Submission

Metric FlightInstrument

Requirementor

ConstraintTrigger Point

Instrument Mass, kg 2556 3000 2700

Electrical Power, W 564 650 590Center of Gravity Offset from Instrument. Interface Plane, cm

23.2 25* 25*

Horizontal Dimension, m

1.73 1.8 1.76

Instrument Dead Time, µs

20 100 40

Background Rejection 3 x 105:1 105:1 105:1Field of View, sr 2.3 2 2.2Ratio of Single Photon Angular Resolutions, 95%/68%

2.3 3 2.8

Single Photon Angular Resolution (68%) @ 1 GeV, deg

0.37 0.5 0.45

Peak Effective Area, cm2

12,000 8,000 9,000

Energy Resolution @ 1 GeV, %

7 10 9

* Depends on the details of instrument-interface plane definition

Figure: 1.2.3: Key Elements of Configuration Management

ConfigurationIdentification

Database

Inst., S-SPerf. and

Verif. Specs,ICD’s

ConfigurationControl

ConfigurationCommunication

ConfigurationStatus

Accounting

10-998509A44



The IPO plans to start placing requirementsand design documents under configuration man-agement shortly after the SRR. Initially, the top-level instrument requirements and key instru-ment design parameters will be baselined. Thiswill then flow down to subsystem requirements,and interface design within the instrument. Earlyestablishment and subsequent control of theproduct baseline will minimize program costsand contribute to schedule control through:

• Systematic and documented approach tochange control.

• Careful evaluations and timely disposition ofproposed changes.

• Immediate communication of change dispo-sition to all affected personnel.

• Establishment of consistent program docu-mentation. The project control group willoperate and maintain an instrument database,which will provide a central point for controlof all documentation for hardware and soft-ware. This internet-accessible database willensure that these documents are properlyrecorded, controlled and distributed to theteam. The database will also serve as anarchive of all program documentation, fur-nishing the IPO with readily accessible andreliable information. Included in this data-base will be the status record and history ofthe GLAST Data Requirements List (DRL)and action items.

• This method of electronic databasing andconfiguration management has been success-fully used in the management of both thePEP-II B-Factory project and BABAR experi-mental program at SU-SLAC. These projectswere more complex than GLAST, withBABAR having a similarly distributed engi-neering and science team.

• Once baseline configuration items are estab-lished, the Change Control Board (CCB) willmanage requests for changes to system-leveldesigns and interfaces, as well as proposeddraw-downs on instrument cost and techni-cal reserves. The CCB, chaired by the IPM,reviews each engineering change request todetermine its effect on the project. The CCBconsists of:.

• Instrument Project Manager

• Instrument Technical Manager• Instrument Scientist• Instrument System Engineer• Subsystem representatives• Project Control Manager• I&T Manager• Performance and Safety Assurance Man-

ager

The ISE will coordinate all activities per-taining to a proposed change, to ensure that thematerial is complete to make a decision.Changes will be classified as shown in Table1.2.2, and changes managed as appropriate forthe class, Changes approved by the CCB willresult in modifications to the instrument base-line. This will be implemented by the PMCS,with all subsequent performance measuredagainst the new baseline.This streamlinedchange processing system has a single-tierchange review and approval system, which willavoid protracted and expensive change process-ing. This will assure that needed changes aremanaged efficiently, while all changes still fallunder the configuration management process. Asdiscussed in Sect. 1.2.4, all CCB actions will bereviewed with the SU-SLAC Director and Asso-ciate Director of Research, and reported to theGSFC Project Office.

1.2.2.4 Integration, Verification, and Qualification

The IPO will implement a thorough integrationand test plan, based on requirements establishedin the System Specification Verification Planand subsystem Specification Plans. While theformal plan will be developed during the Formu-lation and early Implementation Phases, key ele-ments of i t are already understood. This

Table 1.2.2: Change ClassificationsChange Class Description Change Process

Class IAffects form, fit, or function

Requires PI approval

Class IIAffects subsystem interfaces

Requires CCB approval,

Class III Affects subsystem design

Managed at subsystem level, with CM implemented to track changes



expected flow of integration and testing isdepicted in Figure 1.2.4First, GLAST instrument testing will begin at thelowest level of assembly, namely elements andsubsystems. These tests will demonstrate func-tional performance at acceptance environmenttest levels, assuring that all sub-assemblies,when delivered for instrument integration, meettheir requirements. Because of the modularnature of the instrument design, this testing willsignificantly mitigate technical and schedulerisks of subsequent qualification and acceptancetesting on the flight instrument.

Prior to production assembly of the flightinstrument modules, one module will be assem-bled and tested at qualification test levels. Thequalification data will be reviewed by the IDTand, when deemed acceptable, will trigger the

start of assembly of modules 2 through 18.These modules will be tested at acceptance lev-els, to verify workmanship. The 16-moduleflight instrument will then be assembled andtested at proto-flight environment levels, whichis an acceptable and customary approach for sci-entific instrument single-development models.The 18th unit after assembly and environmentaltest will be used as a spare, and the 1st unit,which was subjected to qualification environ-ment tests, will be refurbished and re-tested atacceptance environments and made available asthe 2nd spare. Test parameters will be derivedfrom the GSFC GEVS-SE Specification, Revi-sion A (June, 1996).

The I&T Manager will assemble an I&Tteam to lead the test effort. Representatives fromeach of the instrument subsystems will be

Figure: 1.2.4: Integration and Testing Flow

Fab. and Assy.Qual. Unit

FunctionalPerformance

Test

AcceptanceTest

Environments

QualificationEnvironments

Qual.Review

AssembleModule

#1

AssembleModules#2–18

InstrumentAssembly

Proto. Qual.Environments

AcceptanceTest

EnvironmentCompatibility

AcceptanceTest

Environments

Modules#1–4

Calibration Unit

Beam TestCalibration

Module#1,2 Spares

Refurb.Qual.Unit

Sub

syst

emA

ccep

tanc

e Te

st

ACD

Grid

Cables

GSE

IOC

MMTBDelivery to

Space Craft

Space CraftIntegration

Launch VehicleIntegration

Instrument Delivery Review

Launch Readiness Review

Flight Readiness Review

TrackerCalorimeterDAQSoftwarePowerCables

10-998509A45

Modules #5–18

Modules #3,4



present during the I&T effort to assure timelyresolution of anomalies and discrepancies. Theinstrument environmental test will be performedat an environmental test facility to be competi-tively selected at the start of ImplementationPhase. Upon successful completion of all tests,an Instrument Pre-Ship Review, conducted bythe IPM, will trigger delivery for spacecraft inte-gration.

Throughout the integration and test process,the I&T Manager will be responsible to recordall test data with the PSAM, and deliver verifica-tion results to the ISE. The ISE will determinethat requirements have been verified for all sys-tem- and subsystem-level requirements.

1.2.3 Integrated Project Management Control System (PMCS)

To monitor and assure compliance with cost andschedule baselines, the IPO will implement aproven Project Management Control System(PMCS) supporting the IPM. The PMCS will beimplemented by an experienced PCM who isresponsible for schedule, cost, contract, financialand data management, variance analysis, config-uration management and monthly program con-tract reporting.

The PMCS will:

• Establish and maintain an integrated cost andschedule baseline

• Provide for the orderly and systematic autho-rization of work and project budget

• Develop and publish timely managementreports which display cost, funding andschedule status to baseline plans

• Measure actual and forecasted cost andschedule status against the performance mea-surement baseline to determine the currentand forecast future performance

• Maintain a clearly documented audit trail ofall changes to the performance measurementbaseline through the work breakdown struc-ture

• Identify potential problem areas in sufficienttime to implement the proper managementactions

This PMCS has recently been successfully usedon two large projects managed by SU-SLAC. ThePEP-II B-Factory Collider project was a five year

construction project, with a total cost of $200M,involving three national laboratories, and managed atSU-SLAC, using this PMCS system. The BABARDetector is a $110M experimental physics detector,designed and fabricated over the past five years, by aninternational collaboration of 80 institutions, fromnine countries. BABAR was recently assembled atthe SU-SLAC facility, and is now in operation inconjunction with the PEP-II B-Factory, staffedaround the clock by the collaboration and supportpersonnel at SU-SLAC.

The WBS ensures that project managementcontrol flows down from the PCM to all sub-system managers. They are the Control AccountManagers for their subsystem and, as such, willbe under the direct authority of the IPM and arerequired to report monthly to the PCM on cost,schedule, and performance measurement. Thedetails of this control flow-down and reportingare outlined below.1.2.3.1 Resource ManagementThe PMCS system formally maintains theproject’s cost and schedule baselines, while pro-viding for the development and generation oftimely performance measurement data andreports. This data, and the corresponding reports,provide the IPM with the necessary visibility toanalyze progress and identify any significantproblems and issues in order to establish andimplement corrective action.1.2.3.2 Baseline Development ProcessThe baseline for the GLAST project is defined ina series of documents which detail the projectscope, establish the baseline estimate of projectcost and schedule, and contain the plan for com-pleting the project, as depicted in the AOresponse.

The performance measurement baselinedevelopment process integrates the cost, sched-ule, and technical baselines to ensure thatdefined project objectives are achieved. Hence,the performance measurement baseline is theonly baseline against which all cost, scheduleand technical progress is measured. This is usedto develop all data for internal project manage-ment, as well as for reporting to the GLASTProject Office at GSFC, and to other fundingagencies.



1.2.3.3 Cost EstimatingThe Project Control group is responsible formaintaining a project cost estimate by incorpo-rating all approved configuration managementplan actions.

The WBS provides the framework by whichall contract effort is planned, authorized, sched-uled, budgeted, measured, and reported for per-formance measurement purposes. The WBS isused to organize and subdivide the instrumentproject effort into manageable work elements.The WBS dictionary and budget estimate thenprovide a synopsis of the technical work andassociated cost for each fourth level WBS ele-ment. The WBS is the organizational structurewhich is integrated to establish a ResponsibilityAssignment Matrix and to identify ControlAccounts.

The objective of the Responsibility Assign-ment Matrix is to assure that each ControlAccount is assigned to one organizational entity,which is responsible for the management of thework. The cost accumulation structure, associ-ated work order numbers, and Control Accountsare employed to plan all project activities andsubsequently to collect the actual costs incurredfor all project efforts.1.2.3.4 Schedule ManagementThe scheduling process ensures that the projectschedules are integrated with the project’s costestimate and authorized budgets. The IPS con-tains all project requirements and constraintswhich affect the cost, schedule and technicalbaselines on the Project. This schedule incorpo-rates the major project milestones, key decisionpoints, logic relationships, and interdependen-cies into an integrated hierarchy of schedulesthat establish and maintain vertical and horizon-tal relationships between and among all systemsand subsystems. The IPS displays all constraintsand interface points, as well as the critical pathfor the Project.

For team member institutions which will beproviding in-kind contributions of equipmentand hardware for the instrument project, the IPSforms the nucleus of the performance trackingsystem. For these institutions, performance anal-ysis is done using earned-value and schedulevariance techniques. Past experience has shown

that simply monitoring work progress towards adistant earned-value milestone does not providethe level of detail and immediacy needed totrack such a complex project. However, moni-toring performance variances against expectedperformance at the work package and task levelyields far more accurate valuation data, and pro-vides the IPM with more useable metrics to iden-tify and address any under-performing aspect ofthe project.

The IPM will use the Primavera schedulingsoftware to manage the IPS. This has been suc-cessfully used in past projects at SU-SLAC, notto simply track schedule progress, but to pro-actively manage subsystem performance, iden-tify potential variances, and plan correctiveaction. Using this modern management tool hashelped in the on-time completion of both majorprojects completed in the past year at SU-SLAC.1.2.3.5 Performance AnalysisThe performance baselining process ensures thatthe cost, schedule and technical parameters ofthe project are integrated into a single perfor-mance measurement baseline, to enable timelyand valid performance data reporting throughoutthe lifetime of the project. The performancebaseline is hierarchical in nature; the baselineexists within each of the systems and ControlAccounts as well as at the total Project level.

The Project Control group is responsible foradministering formal change control proceduresto maintain the integrity of the baseline. ControlAccount and work package planning guidanceand procedures exist to assure that this integrityis maintained at the performing level as well.

The process further helps to assure that thetotal cost does not exceed the approved projectbudget base. The performance baseline is one ofthe data elements used to ensure that the near-term budget expenditure profile plus plannedcommitments and termination liability, conformsto the authorized funding profile.1.2.3.6 Status Reporting and Data CollectionAs the Project progresses, the baseline plansdeveloped during the baseline developmentphase will have their status reported. Perfor-mance data will be gathered, work performanceassessed, and forecasts of future performance aremade on a monthly basis.



Internal and external reports will be provided tothe IPO and corrective action plans developed asneeded to arrest or minimize potential cost andschedule problems. Figure 1.2.5 shows the flowof data in this collection and reporting process.

Key tools for project status reporting are theControl Account detailed schedules. These areupdated monthly with estimated levels of sched-ule and cost performance, and are combinedwithin the Integrated Project Schedule. The per-formance reported on the various schedules isthe basis for determining earned value, cost, andschedule variances for all project effort on amonthly basis. Comparing performance with theassociated budget and the corresponding actualcosts for each Control Account and WBS ele-ment, provides insights that enable ControlAccount Managers and the PCM to analyze costand schedule variances, and focus resources torectify and/or mitigate cost and schedule prob-lems.

The COBRA software tool will be used toimplement this status reporting and analysis.

This tool has been employed by SU-SLAC sincethe start of the PEP-II project, and has provedinvaluable in aiding accurate reporting and anal-ysis of performance data.1.2.3.7 Account ManagementTo facilitate accurate and timely reporting of allactual cost data, all costs will be reported to thePCM, organized by Control Account and WBSelement. Work orders and accounts will beestablished at all member institutions, and willbe linked with the appropriate control accounts.This ensures that project performance is trackedequally well for all subsystems, independent ofthe institutions involved. To effectively managethe reporting of all actual costs, the PCM willwork with contacts in accounting departments atall team institutions.1.2.3.8 Performance Reports

Monthly performance reports will be gener-ated by the PCM, for dissemination within theproject. These will be the primary tool used toanalyze status and variances of instrument sub-systems. Monthly summary Cost/Schedule Sta-

Figure: 1.2.5: Project management Control System Monthly Process

GSFC

NRL

SU-HEPLSU-SLAC GLAST IPO

UCSC

Non-U.S.Institutions

Primavera Schedule Software• Integrated Project Schedule (IPS)• Critical Path Analysis

Cobra CostManagement Software• Earned Value• Cost, Schedule Variances• Estimate at Complete Analysis

GLAST Baseline Schedule GLAST Baseline Budget

Actuals and Commitments;Performance Reporting

Milestones Into IPS

ConfigurationControl Action

10-998509A53



tus Reports (CSSR) will also be generated, fordistribution to the GSFC Project Office, to theDOE-SLAC site office, and to any other fundingagencies requiring this information.1.2.3.9 Performance Analysis and

ForecastingThe PMCS process provides for a consistent andobjective means to analyze the work accom-plished. The analysis forms the basis for thedevelopment of forecasts of future performanceand the supporting rationale for estimate-to com-plete studies.1.2.3.10 Performance Measurement Baseline

MaintenanceAs the project progresses, there will likely beevents and conditions that necessitate changesbe made to the cost, schedule and technical base-lines. This will be accomplished in compliancewith the project configuration control plan.Revisions to the performance measurementbaseline are classified into one of three catego-ries, with differing levels of change controlrequired. These are listed in Table 1.2.3.

1.2.4 Reporting and Reviews1.2.4.1 Programmatic ReviewsAs described in Sect. 1.2.3, the IntegratedProject Management Control System will elec-tronically generate monthly and quarterlyreports. The PCM will maintain these electroni-cally accessible databases of the cost, scheduleand performance baselines. The GSFC GLASTProject Office and DOE-SLAC site office willreceive formal written monthly cost and sched-ule reports. On a quarterly basis, the IPI and theIPO will hold a project review with the GSFCProject Office that encompasses programmaticand technical progress, including accomplish-ment narratives, budgets, schedules, and issues,as well as configuration changes that have beenapproved/disapproved by the GLAST IPO.

In addition to these formal programmaticreviews, the SU-SLAC directorate will supportthe instrument management team throughweekly status reviews. These reviews betweenthe IPI, IPM, and ITM, and the SU-SLAC Directorand Associate Director for Research have provenvery effective in past projects both to provideguidance, and to resolve any intra- or inter-insti-tutional issues regarding the project.

Within the instrument project, the IPM willconvene monthly project control reviews, toassess performance analyses for cost, schedule,and technical performance of each subsystem,and of the system as a whole. Finally, the IPMwill convene informal weekly status updates, tokeep abreast of development progress, and guidetactical decision-making at the subsystem level.1.2.4.2 Technical ReviewsThe IPO will institute a multi-tiered system oftechnical reviews for the project. This is showngraphically in Figure 1.2.6. First, the IPO willsupport NASA Mission-level reviews, includingthe M-PDR and M-CDR, with status reporting onthe instrument technical and programmaticprogress.

The next tier of reviews focuses specificallyon the instrument. This process starts with theSystem Requirement Review, which will be aformal review to finalize the mission require-ments. Its purpose is to assure the mission teamthat the goals and objectives of the mission arebeing accomplished by the requirements and theflow down that has been established by theGLAST IPO.

Furthermore, at project start, semi-annual(every six months) DOE Lehman reviews will beinitiated. These will evaluate the status of theentire GLAST project from programmatic andtechnical perspectives. This formal review pro-cess has been used during the implementation ofpast projects at SU-SLAC, both as a tool for DOEto manage the project, and as a consistent formalfeedback mechanism for project management atSU-SLAC.

The IPI proposes that these on-going DOEreviews also be used as a mechanism for boththe NASA GSFC project office and the DOE to beformally updated on both LAT instrument andmission status.

Table 1.2.3: Levels of Change ControlChange Type Approving Agent

Routine replanning Control Account Manager

Internal replanning Project Control Manager

CCB changes CCB and IPM



For all instrument-level reviews, the GLASTIPO will present designs, test plans, and verifica-tion plans. The review team will develop spe-cific recommendations, actions, and concerns tothe Project. These actions will be tracked to res-olution by the IPM, to ensure closure, then pre-sented to the same team at the next review.

To supplement the formal instrument reviewprocess, the IPI & SLAC directorate will convenea standing Design Review Board (DRB) toreview the instrument project at least once ayear, and evaluate the instrument implementa-tion as the project evolves. The DRB will becomprised of a standing group of world-classscientists and engineers drawn from institutionsinternationally. Their technical and managerialexperience will provide a valuable calibrationsource for instrument progress, against whichthe IPI and SU-SLAC directorate can guage over-

all performance of the instrument. Similar stand-ing review committees have been convened forpast projects at SU-SLAC, and they have beenvaluable in providing guidance to the manage-ment team.

The third tier of technical reviews plannedfor the project is comprised of, incremental“peer reviews” at the subsystem level. Theseoccur on an ad hoc basis, convened and man-aged by the ISE as part of the process leading upto the formal reviews. For these reviews, techni-cal experts from within the instrument sub-systems will be called upon to engage ininformal round table reviews of plans, designs,and implementations at key development stages.Formal notes and action items will be taken atthese peer reviews and will be presented at theprogram review. We have already made exten-sive use of peer reviews during the technology

Figure: 1.2.6: GLAST Instrument Technical Reviews

Mission Reviews

M-PDR 4/2002M-CDR 4/2003

Instrument Technical Reviews

SRR 6/2000I–PDR 8/2001I–CDR 7/2002DOE Lehmen Rev. Bi-AnnuallyQual. Review 8/2003Delivery Review 12/2004

Design Review Board

Dev. Review 1/2001Impl. Review 2/2002Integ. Review 2/2003Test Review 10/2003

Independent Verification

NAR 8/2001IA 6–9/2000

Peer Development Reviews

Subsystem Design ReviewsCollaborative Eng. ReviewsSystem-Level Req’s. Reviews

Status Reviews

Interface ControlSubsystem DesignSubsystem RequirementsQuality Planning

Team Meetings

Video ConferencesSite VisitsNet Meetings

10-99



development phase and have found them to bevery effective. These reviews are listed in Table1.2.4

Finally, the last tier of reviews are scheduledIDT meetings, chaired by the ITM, which will beconducted throughout the development, fabrica-tion, test, and integration processes. These meet-ings are meant to provide an iterative process torefine the project, while considering the impactsof technical cost and schedule issues..

1.2.5 Team Member Coordination and Communications

As discussed above, there will be varying tiers ofreviews and coordination meetings to providestatus reporting and guidance within the GLASTinstrument team. These will provide the formalstructure of coordination within the team. Boththe monthly Project Control review, and theweekly IDT meeting will be video-conferences,to ensure that all team members are included.Video-conferencing has been used extensivelyduring the development phase, with the neces-sary infrastructure already in place at all memberinstitutions.

Communication within the instrument teamis now being handled using all media available.Specifically, the instrument already has in placean extensive array of web sites at most memberinstitutions. These will be expanded signifi-cantly at project start. The IPO, in particular, willexpand its web presence to include the latestschedule and cost data, as well as all docu-mented and configuration-controlled require-ments and design parameters. Action item listswill also be posted on the site along with the sta-tus and full explanation as to the resolution ofthe item. Events will be posted to keep the entireteam informed as to the latest status. This will be

an important tool to keep the entire team, espe-cially our international partners, informed on allof the latest developments of the project.

Using these advanced communication andcoordination tools will help ensure strong teamcoordination and cohesion. They will also helpminimize the need for time consuming writtenformal reports, and for excessive travelling.However, monthly site visits by IPO representa-tives have been planned and budgeted, to assessand guide progress in person at all subsystemhome institutions. Whenever possible, these on-site visits will be timed with milestone events tominimize travel.

1.2.6 Multi-Institutional ManagementSections 1.2.2 through 1.2.4, above, havedescribed the processes by which the IPO willproactively guide the instrument project. Theseprocesses have been tailored to fit the interna-tional, dispersed project team, by relying heavilyon the project work breakdown structure forclear definition of projects, and on modernmedia for tight links between geographicallydiverse parts of the project. Past experience atSU-SLAC and other of the team institutions hasproven that these tools can, when applied by astrong and proactive Instrument Project Office,yield a stable and dynamic team.

There are two significant aspects to success-fully managing such a dynamic project team.First, roles and responsibilities of all team mem-bers must be well defined. This will be accom-plished through a well-applied WBS structure,and statements of work for all team membergroups and institutions. This empowers individ-uals and groups to excel in their work, while stillmaintaining clear accountability and manage-ment oversight for the project. Such a well-defined structure also works to minimize compe-tition between organizations.

Another critical aspect of successful man-agement of such an international project is clearcommunication between team member institu-tions. At the project level, this will be providedby the tiered review and reporting systemplanned. At the institutional level, this requiresstrong commitment and eclectic communica-tions between institutions, to ensure that theproject maintains visibility. This director-level

Table 1.2.4: Peer ReviewsReview Date

Instrumentation Software Status 6/99

DAQ Design 4/99

ACD Design 1/99

Calorimeter Electronics Design 6/98

Tracker Electronics Design 11/97

Tracker Silicon-strip Detectors 6/97



communication is strongly endorsed by the lead-ership at Stanford University, and has proven tobe very effective in keeping open lines of com-munication between organizations. The LATinstrument project has long since initiated andsustained such institutional ties. The Memorandaof Agreement will serve to formalize these ties,and subsequent communications will help main-tain strong project support at all team memberorganizations.

1.3 HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The GLAST hardware and software acquisitionstrategy is depicted in Table 1.3.1 through Table1.3.5. For each subsystem the following data isprovided:

• Description of the product to be acquired,and quantities needed

• Design status of the current design, indicat-ing the level of design work needed toachieve flight design status

• Responsible institution or key sub-contractorhandling the acquisition

• End item use category for each product, dis-cussed below

The Use category identifies the end itemassemblies in which the product is used. TheBeam Test Engineering Model (BTEM) currentlyexists, and will be used for electron-beam cali-bration studies in the Fall of 1999. This includes

a full-scale Tracker tower, Calorimeter module,and ACD model, to validate the technologiesinvolved.

The Engineering Model (EM), is the updateto the BTEM, comprised of flight-configurationhardware and processes. EM models will includea Tracker tower, Calorimeter module, ACD, andDAQ. These serve to validate all processesplanned for the flight implementation.The Qualification Unit (Qual. Unit) is the firstflight unit that is built and subjected to qualifica-tion environmental levels. The Flight Units arethe 16 modules to be delivered and integratedinto the flight instrument. The Spares listed areonly the flight-tested spare assemblies, whichwill be placed in storage, to be used in the eventof a part or subassembly failure. Additionalflight-tested spare components will be availableas-needed, during the assembly and testing of allsubassemblies. As shown in the tables, almostall of the critical acquisitions have been identi-fied, and we have either already initiated com-munications with possible subcontractors orvendors, or have actually procured prototypes orhardware for the BTEM. Given the relativelyconservative technology choices, none of theacquisitions is expected to pose large technicalrisk. The only long-lead acquisition needed is forthe silicon-strip detectors for the Tracker. Sec-tion 2.2 of Volume 1 details the extensive proto-typing and validation planning that has alreadybeen undertaken for the silicon strip detectors.

Table 1.3.1: GLAST Acquisition Strategy - TrackerDescription Design Status Responsibility Use Quantity

BTEM EM Qual. Flight SpareTower Existing SU-SLAC, UCSC, & INFN Existing 1 1 16 1Silicon-StripDetector

ExistingHamamatsu PhotonicsCommercial Purchase

130 LaddersExisting

—144

Ladders2304

Ladders144

Ladders

Front-EndElectronics

ExistingNew Mfg. Process

Design – UCSCFab–HP

34 Existing — 38 608 38

ASICs ExistingDesign-UCSCFab-U.S. Vendor

800 --- 1008 16128 1008

Tray SandwichStructure

ExistingDesign – SU-SLAC /HytecFab – U.S. Vendor

17 Existing 10 19 304 19

Kapton FlexCircuits

ExistingDesign-UCSCFab-INFN, Italy

40 26 44 704 44



1.4 SCHEDULES

1.4.1 Development and Implementation Schedule

1.4.1.1 Instrument System ScheduleA schedule has been developed which showshow the instrument project will proceed from theBTEM and project start, through final instrumentdevelopment to a second-generation engineeringmodel which uses the flight design. Finally,flight hardware will be designed, procured, and

assembled by subsystem, before final integrationat SU-SLAC.

Scheduling of subsystem activities wasdone in conjunction with work and budget esti-mating. Particular attention was paid to the per-sonne l load ing r e l a t i ng to the pa ra l l e lproductions lines for the Tracker and Calorime-ter. Also, because of the difficult funding profilefrom NASA, formulation-phase loading andunloading was checked. This ensured that work

Table 1.3.2: GLAST Acquisition Strategy - Calorimeter

Description Design Status ResponsibilityUse Quantity

BTEM EM Qual. Flight Spare

Calorimeter Existing NRL, France & Sweden Existing 1 1 16 1

CsI Crystal ExistingKTH (Stockholm, Sweden)BTEM qualified two vendors:Crismatec & Amcrys H

Existing 96 96 1536 96

PIN Photodiode Existing French and NRL,Vendor: Hamamstu Photonics Existing 192 192 3072 192

ASIC Mod-Existing CEA/DAPNIA/SEI (France),DMILL process Existing 192 192 3072 192

Electronics Existing NRL Existing 4 4 64 4

Mechanical Structure ExistingDesign: IN2P3/LPNHE-H-X(France & Hytec)Fab: IN2P3/LPNHE-H-X

Existing 1 1 16 1

Table 1.3.3: GLAST Acquisition Strategy - ACD


BTEM EM Qual. Flight SpareAnticoincidenceDetector Design GSFC Existing —

— 1 1 —

Sensor PlasticScintillator Tiles Existing GSFC Existing — 12 145 15

Light CollectionWave Shifting Fibers Existing

Bicron - Commercial PurchaseGSFC assembly

Existing — 24 290 sets 30 sets

Readout Phototubes Mod - Existing Hamamatsu - JapanCommercial Purchase Existing — 1 2 —

HV supplies Mod - Existing Design: GSFCFab: US vendor Existing 1 1 set 2 sets 1 set

ASIC Design Design: GSFCFab: US vendor — 12 24 290 30

Electronics Mod – Existing Design: GSFCFab: US vendor Existing 1 1 32 2

Mechanical Support Mod – Existing Design: GSFCFab: US vendor Existing 1 1 1 —



packages could be accomplished on scheduleand within the tight budget constraints.

A strongly mitigating factor in the schedulerisk introduced by the funding profile is the deepbase of experienced personel at almost all of theteam institutions. Staff can, if necessary, bebrought on to the project for finite time periodsor tasks, to ensure schedules are met, then reas-signed to other projects as necessary,

Figure 1.4.1 shows the top-level missionand instrument milestones, along with the flowof development activities which support them.This is a summary of detailed subsystem sched-ules which have been developed.

Mission-level milestones are shown on top,with supporting instrument milestones detailedon the bottom. Planned dates for the instrumentPDR is August 1, 2001, and for the CDR is July1, 2002. The I-PDR is scheduled to occur nearthe mission NAR, just before the start of PhaseC/D, and the development of flight-design engi-neering models. The I-CDR is scheduled justafter the mission PDR and completion of engi-neering model testing, but soon enough to beable to start production lines for flight hardware.

Also shown in the schedule are system engi-neering planning and verification phases. Theseshow the schedule for the process sequences

Table 1.3.4: GLAST Acquisition Strategy - DAQ


BTEM EM* Qual. Fight Spare

TEM (TCPU, DSF) Mod – Existing NRL Existing 24 3 20 3

CAL-TKR-IO Mod – Existing SU-HEPL Existing 19 1 16 1

ACD-IO Mod – Existing SU-HEPL Existing 3 1 2 1

SIU-IO Mod – Existing NRL/SU-HEPL NR 2 1 2 1

SIU-Power Switching Mod – Existing NRL NR 2 1 2 1

Power System Mod – ExistingSU-HEPL/Power Supply Vendor

COTS

3 ACD2 SIU19 CAL19 TKR24 TEM




Cable Harness Mod – ExistingSU-HEPL/Cable Vendor

Existing — partial set 1 set2 eachunique

cable type

Enclosures Mod – Existing SU-HEPL NR — 1 1 —

Flight SoftwareIOC Software

Mod – ExistingMod – Existing

NewNew

SU/SLAC/NRLSLAC/U. WashingtonGFSC/NRLSLAC/NRLSLAC/SU (HEPL)

Existing

——

—

——

—

——

—

11

—

——

IOC Hardware Mod – Existing SLAC Existing — — Existing —

Table 1.3.5: GLAST Acquisition Strategy - GRID


BTEM EM Qual. Flt Spare

Grid New SU-SLAC/LM-ATC — 1 1 1 —

Heat Pipes New SU-SLAC/LM-ATC — — 4 20 —

Radiators New SU-SLAC/LM-ATC — — — 2 —

Thermal Blanket Mod - Existing GSFC --- — — 1 —



which were shown in Figures 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.This starts with establishing the system-levelarchitecture, then flowing requirements down tothe subsystem level, and establishing spacecraftICD’s. Verification planning then begins, fol-lowed by execution of the test and verification

procedures. This cycle is duplicated for the qual-ity assurance planning and implementation.

The schedule shown is driven by the fund-ing profile for the instrument. This back-endheavy profile introduces some additional sched-ule risk, since production, assembly and testing

Figure: 1.4.1: Top-Level Mission and Instrument Milestones

Task Name Start

ACD Development 4/1/00

Refurbish BTEM ACD 4/1/00

ACD Suborbital Integration 2/16/01

Suborbital Flight Campaign 4/13/01

Design, Fab, Test ASIC Photo’s 4/1/00

Develop ACD Mech. Design 4/1/00

Procure Eng. Model Materials 12/8/

I-PDR 8/1/01

Assemble, Test Eng. Models 8/1/01

I-CDR 7/1/02

Fab, Assemble Cal. ACD 7/1/02

Fab, Procure Flight Parts 7/1/02

Assemble, Test Flight ACD 6/30/

Flight ACD Ready for Int. 1/12/

Task Name Start

DAQ Development 4/1/00

Design Engineering Model 4/1/00

Fab. Engineering Model 8/18/

EM Integration & Test 1/5/01

Suborbital Integration 2/16/

Suborbital Flight Campaign 4/13/

EM Design Update 4/27/

Develop Sensor Simulators 2/16/

I-PDR 8/1/01

Fab. Subsystem Interface TEM 10/1/

Subsystem Interface Tests 12/24/0

DAQ Testbed Fabrication 2/4/02

DAQ Testbed I & T 4/29/

I-CDR 7/1/02

Assemble, Test Qual DAQ 8/1/02

Assemble, Test Flight DAQ 2/27/

Flight DAQ Ready for Int. 11/5/

Task Name Start Finish

Mission Milestones 4/1/00 4/1/00

Formulation 4/1/00 9/30/01

Implementation 10/1/01 9/30/05

Operations 10/3/05 9/30/10

System Requirements Review 6/1/00 6/1/00

Independent Assessment 4/1/00 8/31/00

Non-Advocate Review 8/17/01 8/17/01

Mission PDR 4/1/02 4/1/02

Mission CDR 4/1/03 4/1/03

Instrument Delivery 12/1/04 12/1/04

Launch 9/1/05 9/1/05

Instrument Process Flow 4/1/00 4/1/00

Fix Instrument Footprint 9/1/00 9/1/00

Develop Instrument Design 9/4/00 1/31/01

Suborbital Flight Campaign 4/13/01 4/26/01

Procure Eng. Model Matl’s 2/1/01 7/16/01

I-PDR 8/1/01 8/1/01

Assemble Engineering Models 7/17/01 2/14/02

Test Engineering Models 2/15/02 6/14/02

I-CDR 7/1/02 7/1/02

Fab, Assemble Flight Modules 7/1/02 1/23/04

Deliver Final Flight Modules 2/2/04 2/2/04

Integrate Instrument 9/30/03 2/12/04

Test Instrument 2/13/04 8/20/04

Schedule Contingency 9/8/04 12/1/04

Ship Instrument 12/1/04 12/1/04

System Engineering 4/1/00 4/1/00

Develop System Architecture 4/1/00 10/26/00

Develop ICD’s 10/27/00 7/19/01

Finalize System Specs 4/1/00 5/25/00

Decompose Spec’s 5/26/00 7/19/01

I-PDR 8/1/01 8/1/01

Verification Planning 8/1/01 6/11/02

I-CDR 7/1/02 7/1/02

System Validation, Verification 7/1/02 12/1/04

Develop Q.A. Plan 4/1/00 7/5/01

Develop Process Procedures 7/6/01 5/16/02

Implement Q.A. Procedures 5/17/02 12/1/04

Formulation

Implementation

Operations

6/1/00

8/17/01

4/1/02

4/1/03

12/1/04

9/1/05

9/1/00

4/13/01

8/1/01

7/1/02

12/1/04

8/1/01

7/1/02

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

10-998509A62



of the Tracker and Calorimeter modules mustwait for funding, then proceed very rapidly. Ourdetailed scheduling shows that this is mitigatedby parallel production lines, and by the modulardesign of the instrument.1.4.1.2 Subsystem Schedules

Figure 1.4.2 shows the schedule for imple-mentation and includes work tasks for the keysubsystems. This only shows a summary of sub-system activities. The detailed subsystem sched-ules include a full listing and logical linking ofwork packages and tasks. The scheduled time tointegrate the instrument is fairly short—18weeks for integration and preliminary functionaltesting. This reflects the modular design, sinceindividual sub-assemblies will mechanicallyintegrate very quickly. Electrical integration willfollow identical procedures and test protocolsused for module testing after assembly. Theflight DAQ system will be fully tested using sig-nal generators before final integration so this,too, should integrate smoothly with the instru-ment.

On the other hand, we have scheduled 26weeks of testing on the integrated instrument.This will be used for a full array of EMI/EMCtests, cosmic ray and electron beam calibrationtesting, and thermal and structural testing. Thistesting is followed by a three month, fully-funded schedule contingency, which almost dou-bles the available integration time, if needed.Experience with similarly complex high-energyphysics detectors has shown that this long test,check-out, and calibration cycle is crucial for acomplete understanding of the behavior of theinstrument during operation.1.4.1.3 Critical Path

The critical path for the instrument develop-ment and implementation runs through theTracker subsystem. It is set by the final develop-ment and prototyping of the Tracker carbon-fiber composite (CFC) Tray structure. Followingthe I-PDR, a structural engineering model of theTracker will be built, to qualify the design andassembly method. Then, following the I-CDR,the flight CFC tray structures will be fabricatedand assembled, in support of the flight tray pro-duction effort.

The silicon-strip detector fabrication fallsalmost ten months off this critical path, evengiven the relatively slow delivery rate planned.Likewise, schedule risk for other key elementsof the instrument is relatively low. This includesthe CsI logs for the Calorimeter, and the customASIC’s for both the TEM’s and the Calorimeter.

1.4.2 Long-Lead ProcurementsA long-lead procurement is defined as any hard-ware procurement that needs to be placed beforethe start of the Implementation phase. Theinstrument has only one such long-lead item, thesilicon-strip detectors for the Tracker subsystem.As discussed in Volume 1, an aggressive devel-opment program has been undertaken to fullycharacterize the requirements and performanceof these detectors. This program is nearing com-pletion, and the design and performance of thedetectors will be baselined early in the Formula-tion Phase. Procurement will begin during theFormulation Phase in early FY 2001, to ensurethat delivery of these poses a low schedule risk.Funds for procuring the detectors will be sup-plied by funding agencies in Japan and Italy.

1.5 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

Establishment and implementation of a RiskManagement Plan, based on a thorough identifi-cation and analysis of implementation and prod-uct risks is key to successful risk management.

The GLAST team has been careful in thePhase A Concept Study to develop an implemen-tation approach that is low risk and modular indesign. This allows selective flexibility forimplementation of changes and de-scopeoptions, if necessary. It is possible, however, thatunanticipated events may occur that will intro-duce risk areas during the project evolution. TheIPM will implement an ongoing process that willallow--in fact encourage--each individual on theproject to bring to management’s attention anyperceived or actual risks at their first occurrence.

Table 1.5.1 shows a hierarchical approachto how risk will be managed for the GLASTinstrument. This describes a descending orderdecision path for mitigating risk. The first levelto resolve risk is by the allocation of technicalresources and margins. If that is an insufficientor inappropriate solution, then cost and schedule



Figure: 1.4.2: Subsystem Schedule Summary


Tracker Development 4/1/00 4/1/00

Refurbish BTEM TKR 4/1/00 8/17/00

TKR Suborbital Integration 2/16/01 4/12/01


Develop, Test Proto CFC Tray 4/1/00 8/10/00

Procure Silicon Detectors 9/1/00 2/6/03

Develop Eng. Model 8/11/00 7/12/01

I-PDR 8/1/01 8/1/01

Assemble, Test Eng. Model 8/1/01 6/11/02

I-CDR 7/1/02 7/1/02

Procure Tray, FEE Parts 7/1/02 2/7/03

Assemble Trays 2/10/03 9/16/03

Assemble, Test Qual. Tower 3/6/03 5/28/03

Assemble, Test Flight Towers 5/29/03 1/14/04

1st Flt TKR Tower Ready for Int. 8/20/03 8/20/03

1/00

8/1/01

7/1/02

8/20/03

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Calorimeter Development 4/1/00 4/1/00

Refurbish BTEM CAL 4/1/00 8/17/00

CAL Suborbital Integration 2/16/01 4/12/01


Develop Eng. Model 4/1/00 3/22/01

Procure Mech, FEE Parts 3/23/01 7/26/01

I-PDR 8/1/01 8/1/01

Procure CsI Logs 1/16/02 7/30/02

Assemble, Test Eng. Model 8/1/01 6/20/02

I-CDR 7/1/02 7/1/02

Assemble, Test Qual. Module 8/26/02 5/30/03

Assemble, Test Flight Modules 6/2/03 1/30/04

1st Flt CAL Module Ready for Int. 8/22/03 8/22/03

8/1/01

7/1/02

8/22/03

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

(b)

(c)

10-998509A63

(a)

Task Start Finish

Education, Public Outreach 4/1/00 4/1/00

Maintain Outreach Website 6/1/00 9/30/05

Space Mystery Module #1 12/1/04 12/1/04

Space Mystery Module #2 12/1/05 12/1/05

Develop Printed Material Module 6/2/03 12/1/05

Educator Training Workshops 6/3/02 9/1/05

Open Virtual Exhibit 8/3/04 8/3/04

Ongoing Assessment 2/3/03 12/1/05

12/1/04

12/1/05

8/3/04

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007



reserves will be used. Finally, descoping is a lastresort and, if used, will be coordinated with theGSFC Project Office.

Figure: 1.4.2: Subsystem Schedule Summary


ACD Development 4/1/00 4/1/00

Refurbish BTEM ACD 4/1/00 8/17/00

ACD Suborbital Integration 2/16/01 4/12/01


Design, Fab, Test ASIC Photo’s 4/1/00 7/12/01

Develop ACD Mech. Design 4/1/00 12/7/00

Procure Eng. Model Materials 12/8/00 7/12/01

I-PDR 8/1/01 8/1/01

Assemble, Test Eng. Models 8/1/01 6/11/02

I-CDR 7/1/02 7/1/02

Fab, Assemble Cal. ACD 7/1/02 4/29/03

Fab, Procure Flight Parts 7/1/02 6/27/03

Assemble, Test Flight ACD 6/30/03 1/9/04

Flight ACD Ready for Int. 1/12/04 1/12/04

8/1/01

7/1/02

1/12/04

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


DAQ Development 4/1/00 4/1/00

Design Engineering Model 4/1/00 8/17/00

Fab. Engineering Model 8/18/00 1/4/01

EM Integration & Test 1/5/01 2/15/01

Suborbital Integration 2/16/01 4/12/01


EM Design Update 4/27/01 7/26/01

Develop Sensor Simulators 2/16/01 7/26/01

I-PDR 8/1/01 8/2/01

Fab. Subsystem Interface TEM 10/1/01 12/21/01

Subsystem Interface Tests 12/24/01 2/1/02

DAQ Testbed Fabrication 2/4/02 4/26/02

DAQ Testbed I & T 4/29/02 6/21/02

I-CDR 7/1/02 7/2/02

Assemble, Test Qual DAQ 8/1/02 2/26/03

Assemble, Test Flight DAQ 2/27/03 11/5/03

Flight DAQ Ready for Int. 11/5/03 11/5/03

8/1/01

7/1/02

11/5/0

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

(d)

(e)

10-998509A64



1.5.1 Overall PlanNear the end of the GLAST Concept study phase,an ongoing risk management process was begun.This is depicted in Figure 1.5.1.

The first step has been to identify projectrisks, including both implementation and prod-uct risks. Since the GLAST instrument is basedon proven technology, where development mod-els have been built and tested and an engineeringmodel will be tested prior to contract start, theelements of risk are primarily implementationand program risks.

Each subsystem was assessed consideringthe following factors:

• Technology Readiness Level• Performance• Materials• Parts/Processes• Redundancy• Mass• Power• Schedule• Cost

• Team Commitment

A summary of the resultant data is shown inTable 1.5.2. This also shows the baselineapproach for reducing the risk to acceptable lev-els (Low Probability/Low Impact). This riskassessment data wi l l be formal ized andexpanded on at the project start, and will formthe nucleus of the risk management database.

With all key risk elements identified, theirpotential impact on the program was analyzed,based on the probability of incident, and impacton the mission. Analysis allows the risks to beprioritized, and action plans developed. Actionplans include a mitigation strategy and imple-mentation protocol. For all risks determined bythe team to have a high probability of occurrenceand a serious impact on the project a mitigationplan will be developed that will include twopotential solutions. The first will be a process toalleviate the risk using the planned implementa-tion and the second will be an alternate solutionthat would minimize program impact and wouldinclude established review and implementationdates.

1.5.2 Top Four Programmatic RisksUsing the preliminary risk analysis and mitiga-tion table, reduction of risk elements were incor-porated into the baseline approach for all risks.The top four risks associated with this baselineare summarized in Table 1.5.3.Risk 1: The IPO has firm commitments from ourEuropean and Japanese collaborators. Theirfunding authorities have guaranteed the hard-ware and have allocated funding for scientificinvolvement. Nevertheless, we carry a signifi-

Figure: 1.5.1: Risk Management Process

IdentifyImplementation

Risks

Prob./Impact

Develop MitigationPlans for High-Risk

Elements

Prioritize

Identify Productand

Process Risks

DevelopActionPlan

ImplementPlan10-99

8509A47

Table 1.5.1: Risk Mitigation ApproachRiskLevel Risk Mitigation Approach Phase

1 Design low risk into instrument-Use only proven technologies-Favor lower risk approach insystem trades

Form.

2 Maintain adequate technical reserves,and manage allocation closely

Impl.

3 Carry cost and schedule reservesand allocate at the subsystemand system level

Impl.

4 Implement planned descope options,in coordination with GSFC ProjectOffice

Impl.



cant contingency during the ImplementationPhase, to deal with unexpected changes in for-eign funding. Although this contingency cannotfully replace all activity which the foreign part-ners supply, we would be able to proceed whilealternate solutions are established or issuesresolved.Risk 2: As the GLAST Instrument is being inte-grated and tested, problems are bound to occur.We have anticipated that such problems mightoccur even though we will strive to minimizethem by extensive testing at the subsystem level,interface verification and performance verifica-tion prior to delivery of the subsystem. To dealwith these events we are holding a 50% contin-gency during the I&T fiscal year, in addition to athree-month fully funded schedule reserve. Risk 3: The IPO has firm commitments andagreements with our European and Japaneseteam institutions, and our relationship is basedupon the demonstrated dedication of each insti-tution and the personal commitment of eachindividual member. We have demonstratedeffective communication throughout the conceptstudies that preceded this proposal, and have along track record on past projects showingexemplary performance from all team institu-tions This has been due both to their dedication,and to a pro-active management method with allteam members throughout the project. This willbe implemented in the GLAST project, as well,as described in Sect. 1.2.6 on Multi-InstitutionalManagement.Risk 4: The largest single procurement item isthe silicon strip detectors. The GLAST team hasbeen working on the procurement strategy fromthe beginning of the R&D phase. Based on ourlong experience in ground-based applications,we conducted several trade studies of the detec-tor design, and in all cases the more conserva-tive, simpler solution has been chosen. Forexample, while AMS has flown the moreadvanced, but more complicated, double-sideddetectors, GLAST has selected the more robustand economical single-sided configuration,which afford much larger margins in operationsand reliability. The market was surveyed early,and we found that the capacity of qualified ven-dors exceeds the needs of GLAST by a factor of

eight, with no known competition for resourcesfrom other experiments. We now have proto-typed detectors with three established compa-nies. Our foreign team institutions will procurethe detectors, under direct control of the Trackersubsystem manager. Together with SU-SLAC,they have funded an aggressive prototyping pro-gram in the last years, and their funding profilewill allow early procurement of the detectors. Toestablish high visibility of this effort, the Trackersubsystem manager has appointed a DetectorCoordinator, to directly manage all efforts relat-ing to the detector development and procure-ment.

1.5.3 Management Strategies for Reserves and Margins

This proposal represents the GLAST Baselinewhich will be put under configuration controlsoon after submission. Cost, schedule and per-formance reserves are under the control of theInstrument Project Manager. Subsystem alloca-tions and re-allocations may be made within theresources of the subsystem with the knowledgeof the IPM and Project Control Manager.Changes that affect other interfaces must be for-mally documented, requested and approved bythe Configuration Control Board. See Sect.1.2.2.3 on Configuration Management.

Any changes that affect science or program-matic requirements require the knowledge andconcurrence of the IPI. When actions impactingscience, such as de-scoping, are implemented,the IPI must have the concurrence of the GSFCProject Office. The allocation and release of allresources will be under configuration controland are monitored by, and require concurrenceof, the Instrument Project Manager. Costreserves are held by the IPO and not pre-allo-cated.

Figure 1.5.2 shows the planned allocation ofprogram resources. We expect that approxi-mately 25% of the technical reserves will beallocated by the time of the PDR. Schedule con-tingency and cost reserve allocations should beminimal at PDR. An additional 25% of the tech-nical reserve and approximately 15-25% of thecost reserves and very little schedule contin-gency should be allocated by CDR. From CDRthrough launch, the remaining assets would be



allocated on an as-needed basis determined atthe monthly program status reviews. A plot ofthe planned distributions with an up-to-dateactual distribution will be maintained and usedas a tool to evaluate progress regarding the abil-ity to implement the baseline mission versus theneed to implement a descope option.

1.5.4 Performance Reserves1.5.4.1 Mass ReservesOf paramount importance is the control ofinstrument mass. The early prototyping and test-ing of a variety of subsystems of the GLASTinstrument has helped us get an early under-standing of the mass of most of the key elementsof the instrument. Using this as a starting point,we have characterized all instrument subsystems

Table 1.5.2: Identified Instrument RisksSubsystem Concern Baseline Mitigation Approach

TKR

Silicon availability Long lead item developed on advanced schedule

Silicon fab process sensitivity Multiple suppliers pre-qualified for order

Tight assembly schedule Parallel tray assembly lines at SU-SLAC, INFN

CALTight assembly schedule Parallel assembly lines at NRL, CEA

CsI fab. process sensitivity Two suppliers pre-qualified for order

ACD Puncture light-tight seal by micrometeorite in flight Optical isolation of individual tiles

DAQ L3T processing requires more MIPs than available in SIU

Utilize Tower CPUs for L3T processing (up to ~300 MIPs available)

Grid Complex fabrication process Perform trade study on CFC vs. aluminum, and fabtechniques early in Formulation Phase

Software Meeting schedule and cost plans Development Plan during Formulation Phase

SystemLevel

Multiple Interfaces Strong, proactive Instrument Project Office; cultivate good subsystem teamwork

Hardware/Software Integration Pro-active System Engineering approach; implement through I&T plan

Single Point Failures Perform FMEA analysis before I-PDR & I-CDR

Supplier Performance Develop dual sources for critical items

Domestic, international funding availability

Pro-active cost/funding analysis and strong team involvement to keep project sold

Table 1.5.3: Top Four Programmatic RisksRisk Effect Mitigation

1Foreign team institution withdraws from investigation

Loss of funding source and personnel to accomplish work.

Draw down contingency to mitigate loss of funding source. Redistribute effort within project.

2Problems or delays during Instrument I&T

Integration cost and schedule variances

Holding a 50% cost reserve during I&T, with a fully funded three-month schedule reserve

3Under-performing team institution

Cost and schedule variances eat up reserve

Maintain 35% reserve during Implementation Phase, and manage subsystems pro-actively during life of project

4Late delivery of Silicon Strip Detectors

Schedule delay in Tracker assembly

Start SSD development before project start. Procure SSD’s starting in Formulation Phase (long lead). Develop multiple suppliers for SSD’s



to fully detail the instrument mass. Table 1.5.4shows a summary of these subsystem masses,along with two component-level reserve analy-ses.

Class defines the fabrication history of thecomponent:

I. A new design which is one-of-a-kind or afirst generation device.

II. A generational design that follows a previ-ously developed concept and expands com-plexity or capabilty within an establisheddesign envelope, including new hardwareapplications to meet new requirements.

III. A production level development based on anexisting design for which multiple units areplanned, and a significant amount of stan-dardization exists.

Level defines the maturity of the design:

Bid: Concept proposal, RFP response, or a base-line design for future development.

CDR: Conceptual design review level.

Despite the relatively advanced state of thesubsystem designs, the instrument still carries aconservative mass reserve. This reserve wascomputed using two techniques. First, an indus-try-standard specification, the "Guide for Esti-mating and Budgeting Weight and PowerContingencies for Spacecraft Systems," (ANSI/AIAA-G-020-1992), was used to best map tech-nology and maturity of the instrument compo-nents to standard industry-adopted reserves. Thisanalysis shows that, for our estimated mass of2557 kg, we need a 15.6% reserves, bringing thetotal mass, with reserve, to 2957 kg and belowthe mass ceiling of 3000 kg.

In the second reserve analysis, differing lev-els of reserve were assigned to different types ofmass. GLAST contains a considerable amount ofmaterial used expressly for scientific signal pro-duction, and the exact quantity, volume, anddensity of this material have been measured andunderstood for quite some time. These materialsare the lead converters and silicon detectors forthe Tracker subsystem, the scintillators for theAnticoincidence Detector, and the CsI for the

Figure: 1.5.2: Planned Allocation of Resources

75

50

25

0

10

I-PDR

Res

erve

s (

perc

ent)

I-CDR Start ofI and T

Instr.Delivery

ScheduleContingency

CostReserves

TechnicalMargins

100

10-998509A48

Subject to Cancellation

Minimum Mission

Descope Mission

Baseline Mission



Calorimeter. These four materials were assigneda mass reserve of 4% (equivalent to changing thelength and width of one tower by 8 mm). Weconsider this an adequate reserve for these well-understood materials.

For the remainder of the material, the lesswell-defined mass which represents the instru-ment structure, electronics, and cable plant, a42% reserve was assigned. This results in a totalinstrument mass, including reserve, of 2997 kg,right at the instrument budget of 3000 kg. Using

Table 1.5.4: Subsystem Reserve and Mass AnalysesReserve Approach 1 Reserve Approach 2

Component TypeMass

Estimate (kg) Class Level Cat % Reserve Mass Budget (kg) % Reserve Mass Budget (kg)

TRACKER

Thermal & Mechanical Structures 191.416 I Bid BW 35.0 258.411 42.0 271.810

Silicon detectors 73.011 II CoDR BW 20.0 87.614 4.0 75.932

Lead Converters 173.285 III CoDR BW 3.0 178.484 4.0 180.217

Electronics, Cabling, and Others 84.123 I CoDR BW 30.0 109.360 42.0 119.455

Subtotal Tracker 521.836 21.5 633.869 24.1 647.414

CALORIMETER

Mechanical Structures 161.597 I CoDR BW 30.0 210.075 42.0 229.467

Cesium Iodide 1338.302 III Bid CW 2.0 1365.068 4.0 1391.834

Electronics & Cabling 31.653 I Bid AW 50.0 47.479 42.0 44.947

Others (wrapping, etc) 17.956 I Bid AW 50.0 26.935 42.0 25.498

Subtotal Calorimeter 1549.508 6.5 1649.558 9.2 1691.747

ACD

Mechanical Structures 50.781 I Bid BW 35.0 68.554 42.0 72.109

Scintillators 84.550 II Bid BW 25.0 105.688 4.0 87.932

Phototubes, HV power, and wiring 23.800 I Bid AW 50.0 35.700 42.0 33.796

Fibers, wrapping, foam spacers, etc 14.500 I Bid AW 50.0 21.750 42.0 20.590

Subtotal ACD 173.631 33.4 231.692 23.5 214.427

GRID

Grid Structure 142.979 I Bid BW 35.0 193.021 42.0 203.029

Subtotal Grid 142.979 35.0 193.021 42.0 203.029

DATA ACQUISITION (DAQ)

TEM Modules 32.000 I Bid AW 50.0 48.000 42.0 45.440

SIU Modules 15.000 I Bid AW 50.0 22.500 42.0 21.300

ACD Modules 5.000 I Bid AW 50.0 7.500 42.0 7.100

Cable Plant 40.000 I Bid AW 50.0 60.000 42.0 56.800

Subtotal DAQ 92.000 50.0 138.000 42.0 130.640

OTHER

Thermal Blankets 27.265 II Bid AW 30.0 35.445 42.0 38.717

Heat Pipes and radiators 50.000 I Bid AW 50.0 75.000 42.0 71.000

Subtotal Other 77.265 42.9 110.445 42.0 109.717

INSTRUMENT TOTALS 2557.218 15.6% 2956.584 17.2% 2996.974



this method, the average reserve for all mass is17.2%, above that recommend by method #1,using the AIAA standard. The two reserve anal-yses are in good agreement, giving us confi-dence that the mass budget can be met.1.5.4.2 Power ReservesThe instrument power reserves are also calcu-lated using the guidelines of ANSI/AIAA-G-020-1992 for Category AP subsystems at theproposal stage. The Class assignment of eachsubsystem along with the applicable reserve andrequired power is shown in Table 1.5.5.

The Tracker power is determined by the twotypes of ASICs which have been built and testedduring the ATD phase. The Tracker is assignedClass 3 because the complete electronics consistof only two device types which have been proto-typed and measured, including a small activitydependence. In the production cycle, we plan toutilize wafer level probing to verify that thedevice power is acceptable.

The Calorimeter is also Class 3 since thepower for one module has been measured duringthe ATD phase. However, along with the proto-type FE analog ASICS, the Calorimeter powermeasurements were made using some discreteparts; the flight unit will utilize ASICs, with morecontrol functionality, to decrease the parts countand the power. An alternative approach to calcu-lating the Calorimeter power reserve is to esti-mate the power of the flight design and applyClass 1 contingency of 90%. The Class 3 choiceis the more conservative.

The ACD was prototyped during the ATDphase using commercial parts. The flight unitpower estimate is based on an ASIC similar to

the one already developed for the CAL BTEM,with other electronics similar to the prototype.Because the ASIC is a new design, we assign aClass 1 contingency level.

The Tower Electronic Module (TEM) pro-cessor and read out boards have been prototypedusing commercial parts and the power measured,including the activity dependence of the proces-sor. Because the TEM was not tested in flightconfiguration and the activity dependence is asignificant portion of the power requirement, wehave assigned Class 2 contingency to this sub-system component. Changes in the TEM proces-sor were identified during the ATD phase testingwhich will decrease the power requirement, butthis has not been accounted for in the power tab-ulation.

The SIU was not prototyped during the ATDphase by the GLAST program, but it is based onexisting devices and circuits developed for otherprograms which provide power estimates. Amajor portion of the SIU is the processor circuitwhich is identical to the TEM processor.

With reserves applied, we have no marginwith respect to the IRD allocation of 650 wattsorbit averaged. The orbit dependence of powerwith reserve applied is 12.4 watts per kHz of theLevel One Trigger. The power margin is calcu-lated using an orbit average Level One Triggerof 5.5 kHz with the veto disabled. With the vetoenabled, the orbit average power decreases by 43watts and the gross power margin increases by7%. All powers shown include allowance fortypical power supply efficiencies in the range of69% to 87% depending on voltage output.1.5.4.3 Cost ReserveBudget reserve has been rolled-up to the instru-ment level, and is shown in Table 1.5.6, below.Reserve has been allocated both to fit the tightfunding profile, and to reflect the level of matu-rity of the design in different phases, and thelevel of risk associated with the phase of theproject

Both NASA and the major domestic contrib-utor, the Department of Energy (DOE), carrytheir own reserve, and all other domestic con-tributors are bringing in level-of-effort salariesof individuals, where no reserve is needed.

Table 1.5.5: Power Budget and Reserve by Instrument Subsystem

Element Class Power (W) Reserve Powerwith Reserve

TKR III 273 13% 308

CAL III 118 13% 134

TEM II 88 40% 123

ACD I 29 90% 55

SIU I 10 90% 19

TOTAL 518 639



Budget reserves for both NASA and DOEcontributions are just over 25%, which we con-sider to be adequate for the project. Reserveduring Formulation Phase is relatively low,given the advanced state of design for a numberof the subsystems, and the negative annualizedfunding profile for the NASA-funded institutionsin FY 2001. For NASA-funded work, we plan toremain relatively lean until the I-PDR, whenNASA funding can better support the advanceddevelopment and implementation work.

During Implementation Phase, through inte-gration and testing, reserves grows with theincreased risk of negative cost variances. Inaddition to the 50% NASA reserve, and 40%DOE reserve held during FY 2004, the main inte-gration and test year, the Integration and Testbudget plan includes a funded schedule contin-gency of three months.1.5.4.4 Schedule Reserve

As noted in Sect. 1.4 and above, the instru-ment schedule carries a three month funded con-tingency following the integration and testphase. The schedule will be managed aggres-sively over the project to maintain that margin.Nonetheless, the schedule includes contingencyfrom three additional sources. First, for the threesubsystems with the most schedule risk: theTracker, Calorimeter, and DAQ, the subsystemmodularity provides a level of fabrication andintegration flexibility which can provide signifi-cant schedule relief. This flexibility includesbeing able to add extra shifts or additional pro-duction lines, if needed.

Second, schedule risk can be mitigated bydrawing on the strengths of the institutionsinvolved in the instrument production. All bringlong and relevant experiences in high-energyphysics detectors and flight instrumentationassembly and integration. This can be drawn onto mitigate schedule risks by bringing additionalresources to bear on at-risk subsystems, produc-tion processes, or even component-level designand production.

Finally, the modular nature of the instru-ment provides additional schedule risk mitiga-tion, by allowing for selective de-scoping, ifneeded, to mitigate schedule risk. This is onlypossible because of the modular design, and therelatively soft effect on science performance ofmild descoping.

1.5.5 Descope PlanOur descope strategy is an integral part of theRisk Management Plan. Descope is the action oflast resort in the hierarchical approach to riskmitigation. The descope plan addresses mitiga-tion of risk to four principal resources: cost,schedule, mass and power. In Section 2.2.10 ofVol.1, the performance floor is defined to be ¾of the effective area of the baseline LAT. If thatreduction is accomplished by eliminating 4 of 16towers, then the effective area and FOV thatremain still satisfy the SRD requirements. Table2.2.18 of Vol.1 shows how the science reachdepends upon the effective area.

The simplest way to descope the effectivearea is to reduce the number of towers, as is dis-cussed in Section 2.2.10 of Vol.1. In that case allof the performance metrics presented in Table

Table 1.5.6: Budget Reserve by Funding SourceFY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Total

NASA Costs w/out Reserve $3,289 $3,595 $12,024 $13,960 $10,633 $3,673 $47,174

Budget Reserve % 5.00% 0.00% 22.00% 25.00% 50.00% 24.00% 26.49%

Budget Reserve $ $164 $0 $2,645 $3,490 $5,317 $882 $12,498

DOE Costs w/out Reserve $3,435 $6,298 $5,454 $6,709 $3,645 $2,323 $27,864

Budget Reserve % 10.00% 15.40% 26.10% 27.50% 40.00% 38.00% 25.52%

Budget Reserve $ $347 $982 $1,483 $1,879 $1,536 $883 $7,110

Total Other Costs $3,174 $9,695 $12,006 $5,642 $3,349 $3,273 $37,139



2.2.1 and in Foldout B (5a-5d) are unchanged,except for the effective area and, to a muchlesser extent, the FOV. Other viable descopeoptions exist and may be preferred in some cir-cumstances. Table 1.5.7 lists several optionsthat we have considered and consider to beacceptable, together with their impact onresources. Table 1.5.8 shows how the descopeoptions could fit into the mission phases. Mass. An effective descope of the LAT massrequires a reduction in the CAL volume. Thatcan be accomplished in the Formulation Phase(A/B) by rescoping the module sizes. A reduc-tion in tower lateral size would have to beaccomplished very early in the design processbecause of its impact on fundamental dimen-sions such as the SSD size. The CAL depthcould be adjusted much later in the design pro-cess. In fact, even after design, CsI layers couldbe replaced by lower-density mechanical frames,allowing such a mass descope to be taken evenduring the Implementation Phase (C/D).Descoping entire towers could occur well intothe Implementation Phase and would, of course,result in substantial mass reduction.Power. Early in the Formulation Phase thepower could be reduced by increasing the strippitch of the TKR detectors at the cost of somereduction in performance for high-energy pho-tons. The power could be reduced by about 50W in this way without running into problemswith increased strip capacitance. The number ofTKR planes could be descoped later in the designprocess, but that would result in a loss of effec-tive area. TKR planes could be descoped even inthe Implementation Phase for power purposes bybuilding some TKR trays without converters,detectors, and readout chips. Some power sav-ings could be achieved by reducing the numberof TCPU cards, which could be done even in theImplementation Phase. That would result in aloss of level two trigger processing power, whichmay be needed at the highest rate conditions.Descoping entire towers would, of course, resultin substantial power reduction.Cost. The modularity of the LAT design provides

a straightforward cost descope option, by elimi-nation of entire towers. This option could beexercised even during the Implementation Phaseto save both schedule time and cost in materialsand assembly. Elimination of two towers ismore than sufficient to cover the loss of $2.5Mof NASA LAT funding that would occur if a sec-ondary instrument were funded.1 In that circum-stance the full baseline instrument could still beflown with no loss of capability, assuming thatthe qualification tower modules were refur-bished to serve as a flight tower. That would addsome risk, however, since there would be nospare modules. Beam tests, unless eliminatedentirely, would have to be carried out with one ortwo flight towers and would have to be sched-uled so as not to delay I&T. Also, the I&Tschedule would become slightly more complexin order to accommodate the refurbished towers.The refurbished towers and any towers used inbeam tests would be the last ones to be inte-grated onto the flight grid.

Some limited descope options are presentedin Tables 1.5.7 and 1.5.8, such as reducing theACD segmentation, that could be invoked toresolve small budget problems. However, tosave 10% of NASA costs would require elimina-tion of 4 towers. In an optimistic scenario, inthat circumstance the flight spare tower andrefurbished qualification tower could beinstalled and flown, resulting in minimal loss ofcapability. However, if there is a schedule prob-lem in addition to the cost descope, then it mightbe necessary to fly a 4×3 array of towers, whichwould put the LAT at the performance floor. Themaximum possible descope would be elimina-tion of 6 towers. That carries a very high risk,however, of falling below the performance floor,since it would require flying the qualificationtower with no spare towers available. Note thatif the number of towers is reduced sufficientlyearly, then the power reduction would allow theuse of less expensive power supplies, saving anadditional $0.6M.

1 Another $2.5M of NASA instrument funding already is not included in our budgeting.



As indicated in Tables 1.5.7 and 1.5.8,assembly of up to 6 towers could be halted dur-ing the implementation phase. However, Table1.5.7 shows that the cost savings would be negli-gible, assuming that all parts were already pur-chased. Therefore, such a descope would makesense only if required in order to resolve aschedule problem. If this involved omission oftowers from the flight instrument, then theresulting configuration would be non-optimal,since the Grid and the ACD will have alreadybeen designed and built for the full configurationof towers.

None of these descope options includereductions in engineering costs. This is why apart-count reduction of 25% only leads to a 10%reduction in overall costs. But parts, fabrication,testing and integration costs do scale nearly pro-portional to the number of towers. Since the bud-get is severely restricted during the first years ofthe program, and costs during this phase aredominated by engineering, it would be difficult

to use this plan to compensate for significantcuts in the funding for work scheduled duringthe early years (FY 2000 and 2001).

Funding of tower components is derivedfrom several sources, including non-NASA con-tributions. Therefore, in attributing the descopesavings to NASA costs, we are assuming that adescope of the number of towers will require re-negotiations of responsibilities between collabo-rating institutions and movement of resourcesfrom one subsystem to another. We are confi-dent that there is sufficient flexibility in ourmanagement plan and sufficient commitmentfrom our collaborators that this can be accom-plished in any of the scenarios presented here.

1.6 PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY ASSURANCE

1.6.1 Overview of the Performance and Safety Assurance Plan

The scope of the GLAST Performance andSafety Assurance includes quality assurance,

Table 1.5.7: Descoping Options and Impact

ACTION Performance Loss Risk Science ImpactResource Impact

Mass Power Cost

Larger, fewer ACD tiles Form. Phase

Reduced ε @ E > 30 GeV No additional

Line Search Goal and decreased high E efficiency

0 -12W -$0.3M

3 fewer front and 1 fewer back Tracker x,y planes

Form. Phase

Loss of ≈ 20% of effective area No additional Decreased sensitiv-

ity at all energies -110kg -75W -$2.8M

2 fewer CAL layersForm./Impl. Phases

Reduced energy resolution No additional Reduced energy

reach -350kg -18W -0.25M

Reduce number of TCPU boards

Impl. Phase

Decreased peak-rate capability

Decreased redundancy, margins;

Increased S/W complexity

Loss of effective area in high-back-ground conditions

-8kg -13W -$0.4M

Reduce TEM testbed to 4 units

Impl. PhaseNone Testing inadequate to

represent flight hardware None 0 0 -$0.4M

Cheaper, less efficient power supplies

Form Phase

Increased dead time at high rate (power α rate)

Increased heat dissipation and lower power margin None 0 +122W -$0.6M

Increase TKR pitchForm. Phase

235 µm Worse PSF at high energy No additional Decreased sensitiv-

ity at high energy 0-24W

Negligible282 µm -48W

Stop assembly of up to 6 towers

Impl. Phase

2 0% of Aeff Moderate None 0 0 -$0.1M

4 12% of Aeff High Decreased sensitiv-ity at all energies

-263kg -70W -$0.2M

6 25% of Aeff Very High -526kg -140W -$0.3M

Omit up to 6 towersForm. Phase

2 0% of Aeff Moderate None 0 0 -$3.35M

4 12% of Aeff High Decreased sensitiv-ity at all energies

-263kg -70W -$6.7M

6 25% of Aeff Very High -526kg -140W -$10.1M



material and parts selection and control, inspec-tion, problem failure reporting, reliability, soft-ware validation, and safety. The predominantassurance objective is that GLAST will operatein a safe and environmentally sound manner, andwill meet the science objectives and correspond-ing measurement requirements specified in theGLAST Science Requirements Document. Toachieve these top-level objectives, the projectwill establish formal programs to address theprocess for achieving safety and mission suc-cess.

1.6.2 1.6.2 Quality Assurance1.6.2.1 Quality Assurance ProgramThe GLAST Quality Assurance Program pro-vides guidelines for the quality system of theinstrument project to ensure quality consistencyfor all activities. Instrument quality assurance

will be planned, implemented, and managedconsistent with the requirements of ANSI/ISO/ASQC Q9001-1994, “Standard for Quality Sys-tems – Model for Quality Assurance in Design,Development, Production, Installation, and Ser-vicing.” Ultimately, the instrument quality assur-ance program will contain elements that:

• Define a fully integrated and functioningquality organization at all levels of theinstrument organization

• Assure quality requirements are identifiedand implemented through all phases ofinstrument formulation and implementation

• Provide practical guidance on implementinga quality plan for critical activities on theproject as well as support to core group/ser-vice organizations

Table 1.5.8: Mission phased descope for risk mitigation

Phase Resource Issue Mitigation Science Impact Resource Comment

Form.

Mass

Rescope tower module size Effective Area Save mass & power

Rescope # tracker layers Effective Area Save mass & power

Rescope calorimeter depth Energy reach, energy resolution

Power

Reduce DAQ TCPU cards Reliability, orbit average deadtimeSave materials, assembly and I&T costs

Increase SSD strip pitch Hi Energy angular resolution No cost savings

Rescope # of tracker layers Effective Area

ScheduleCost

Delete fabrication and test of two towers

Increased Risk: Fly qualification unit, no spare module

Save materials, assembly, and test costs

Delete Flight towers (max 4) Effective AreaSave materials, assembly, test, and I&T costs; compress I&T schedule.

Cost

Reduce DAQ TCPU cards Reliability, orbit average deadtime Would complicate flight software

Reduce Segmentation of ACDLoss of high energy effective area from backsplash veto

Save on electronics channels, assembly, and test costs

Reduce number of tracker layers Effective Area Materials, assembly, test costs

Cheaper power supplies Lower power margin, increased heat

Impl.

Mass Remove Cal CsI layers Energy reach, energy resolutionReplace with mechanical frames; saves some power

Power

Reduce DAQ TCPU boards Reliability, orbit average deadtime Save assembly costs

Reduce # of tracker layers Effective Area Save assembly costs

Reduce # of towers Effective Area Save assembly costs

ScheduleCost

Delete beam test of two towersIncreased Risk: Calibration, performance uncertainty

Compress I&T schedule & associated costs

Delete fabrication and test of two towers

Increased Risk: Fly qualification unit, no spare module

Save assembly, test, and I&T costs.

Remove up to 4 Flight towers Effective AreaSave assembly, test, and I&T costs; compress I&T schedule.



• Facilitate the implementation of project-widequality measures with emphasis on problemprevention

• Integrate all subsystem and team memberinstitution assurance activities

Quality engineers will be members of theIDT, and product development teams beginningat the formulation phase, and will continue theirinvolvement through implementation, test, anddelivery. These teams will develop the manufac-turing processes, test procedures, and verifica-tion requirements to assure producibility,testability, inspectability and verifiability.

Furthermore, the product developmentteams will determine the critical products andprocesses within their product scope whichrequire design review, parts control, inspectionand problem resolution protocols. The qualityengineer on the team will assure that GLASTQuality Assurance Program guidelines are met,and the appropriate implementing procedures aredeveloped for the subsystem or product element.These procedures will be in accordance with theprograms outlined in the following subsections.

Figure 1.6.1 shows this quality assurance pro-cess development flow.

The quality assurance team will also over-see the engineering redline process, in accor-dance with the configuration management plan,and will maintain the database of all qualityrecords, as defined by ISO 9001 procedures.These include copies of peer review data pack-ages, validation and qualification test logs, as-built drawings, and other quality records.1.6.2.2 ReviewsThe PSAM will support a series of comprehen-sive system-level design reviews that will beconducted by the GSFC Project Office, as dis-cussed in Sect. 1.2.5. The reviews cover allaspects of flight and ground hardware, software,and operations for which the IPO has responsi-bility.

The IPO will also implement a program ofpeer reviews at the component and subsystemlevels. The review teams will be composed ofboth knowledgeable experts to evaluate thefunctional aspect of the element being reviewed,as well as the ISE, PSAM and I&T manager toevaluate the system-level issues.

Figure: 1.6.1: Quality Assurance Process Flow

Identify ProductCharacteristics

Requiring Control

Develop ProductSpecifications andValidation Criteria

Implement FlightProduct/Process

Assurance Protocols

Manage Quality Records• As Builts• Test Data• Verification Analysis• PFR’s

ValidateProducts

Define Processesand

Controls Needed

Develop Validation,Test Protocol Req’s.

and Acceptance Criteria

DevelopProcesses

ValidateProcesses

ImplementCorrectiveAction Planas Needed

Review/Finalize/ModifyProduct

Spec’s andProcessProtocols

as Needed

InstrumentDatabase

Manage Records• Review Action Items• Test Logs

Under Configuration Management

Under Configuration Management

10-998509A50



These reviews will serve two functions.First, they will be used to evaluate the ability ofthe component or subsystem to successfully per-form its function under operating and environ-mental conditions during both qualificationtesting and flight. Second, they will be used toassess the quality assurance plans, and verifica-tion test plans for the component or subsystem.

While the functional aspect of the reviewwill serve as a gate through which the develop-ment process must pass, the quality function ofthe review will provide the means by which for-mal quality procedures and processes are imple-mented for the reviewed element. Action itemswill be maintained by the ISE, and the PSAMwill ensure that quality issues are resolved.1.6.2.3 Parts Selection and ControlAn Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical(EEE) Parts Control Program will be imple-mented to assure that all parts selected for use inflight hardware meet mission objectives forquality and reliability. This program will bedeveloped as part of the larger Quality Assur-ance Program prior to I-PDR, and will facilitatethe management, selection, standardization, andcontrol of parts and associated documentation.The primary mechanism to accomplish this willbe the Program Approved Parts List (PAPL).This will be developed and maintained to assurethat only parts whose performance and reliabil-ity have been proven, or that have demonstratedacceptance for the application, are used. Customor advanced technology devices such as customhybrid microcircuits, detectors, ASIC’s, andMulti-Chip Modules (MCM) will also be subjectto parts control appropriate for the individualtechnology.

The foundation for the Parts Control Pro-gram will be GSFC 311-INST-001, “Instructionsfor EEE Parts Selection, Screening and Qualifi-cation.” For each EEE part which is a candidatefor the PAPL, an appropriate parts quality level(as defined in 311-INST-001) will be assigned,based on system redundancy or criticality. Partsselected from the PPL, or NASA EEE PartsSelection List (NPSL) are considered to havemet all criteria of 311-INST-001, and will beconsidered for approval for the PAPL.

For custom microcircuits, hybrid microcir-cuits, MCM’s, and ASIC’s, the Parts ControlProgram will prescribe a thorough qualificationprocess. This will include complying with theapplicable requirements of 311-INST-001, aswell as implementing a design review processwhich will address derating of elements, elementreliability assurance, the assembly process andmaterials, and methods for assuring adequatethermal matching of materials1.6.2.4 InspectionsFlight products, components, piece parts, andmaterial or any item that directly interfaces withflight products will be subject to receivinginspection, in-process inspection, and finalacceptance inspection, as determined by theProduct Design Team. Inspection proceduresand criteria, and approval/rejection protocolswill be developed and placed under configura-tion control concurrent with the product design.Given the redundant nature of many elements ofthe instrument, selective inspection methods willbe implemented for some processes.

These documented instructions/procedureswill be used for the inspection of quality charac-teristics during the processing of a product. Allsuch procedures, travelers, and inspection resultswill be logged in the quality records database.1.6.2.5 WorkmanshipWorkmanship standards and procedures will bedeveloped concurrent with inspection proce-dures. For EEE parts and assemblies, the instru-ment Quality Assurance Program will relyheavily on proven NASA and industry standards,and implement them as needed. These standardsinclude:

• NASA-STD-8739-3: Workmanship Standardsfor Soldered Electrical Connections

• NASA-STD-8739-5: Technical Standard forFiber Optic Terminations, Cable Assemblies,and Installation

• NAS 5300.4 (3J-1): Workmanship Standardsfor Staking and Conformal Coating ofPrinted Wiring Boards and Assemblies

• IPC-2221: Generic Standard on Printed BoardDesign,

• IPC-6011: Generic Performance Specifica-tion for Printed Boards



• NASA-STD-8739-4: Technical Standard forCrimping, Interconnecting Cables, Har-nesses, and Wiring

• NASA-STD-8739-7: Technical Standard forElectrostatic Discharge Control

• NAS 5300.4 (3M): Workmanship Standard forSurface Mount Technology

• IPC-2222: Sectional Standard on Rigid PWBDesign

• IPC-6012: Qualification and PerformanceSpecification for Rigid Printed Boards

For non-EEE parts, NASA and industryworkmanship standards will be used when possi-ble. For custom processes, new standards will bedeveloped, documented, and implemented asneeded. These will be subject to design review,as part of the overall product and process reviewprocedure (detailed in 1.6.2.2).1.6.2.6 Problem/Failure ResolutionProblems or failures occurring during groundtest of any flight hardware or software will beidentified, documented, assessed, tracked andcorrected in an approved and controlled manner.The process to assure closure of all such inci-dents is the Problem/Failure Report (PFR) sys-tem. This will be formalized concurrent with theQuality Assurance Program, prior to I-PDR.PFR’s will be invoked at failure of any in-pro-cess test or inspection procedure, or in the eventof any anomaly or problem while performingany procedure on flight hardware or software.The PFR will be monitored by the PSAM,through a process of data collection, dispositiondetermination, and corrective action planning.Final approval of corrective actions will begiven by the ISE, at the recommendation of thePSAM. A PFR is considered for closure when theISE determines that appropriate and sufficientinvestigation of the cause of the problem or fail-ure has been completed, and that commensuratecorrective action has been implemented.

For hardware, the PFR system becomeseffective with the first application of power atthe component or subsystem level, or first testusage of a mechanical item. For software, PFRprotocols begin with the first test use of the soft-ware with a flight hardware item at the compo-nent level or higher.

1.6.3 ReliabilityGLAST Performance and Safety Assurance willplan and implement a reliability program thatinteracts effectively with other project disci-plines, including safety, systems engineering,hardware design, and performance assurance.The program will be tailored according to therisk level in order to:

• Assure that adequate consideration is givento reliability during the design and develop-ment of hardware.

• Demonstrate that redundant functions, areindependent to the extent practicable. Thisincludes alternative paths and work-arounds.

• Identify single-point failure items, theireffect on the attainment of mission objec-tives, and possible safety degradation. Wewill minimize these to the extent possible,and our modular design mitigates against therisk of such single points of failure.

• Demonstrate that stress applied to parts isnot excessive; follow the PAPL deratingguidelines.

• Show that reliability design is in keepingwith mission design life and that it is consis-tent among systems, subsystems, instru-ments and components.

During the Formulation Phase, reliabilityanalysis will be performed at the system andsubsystem level, to identify potential problemareas. At a minimum, a Failure Mode and EffectAnalysis will be performed to a sufficient depthso that mission critical failures are identified anddealt with effectively.

The reliability analysis will use GIDEP(Government-Industry Data Exchange Program)failure rate, failure mode and replacement ratedata. This will leverage existing reliability infor-mation to improve the quality and reliability ofparts, components, and subsystems in the instur-ment. In addition, the NASA Lessons LearnedInformation System (LLIS) will be used to applythe knowledge gained from past experience toavoid the repetition of past failures and mishaps.

1.6.4 Software Verification and Validation

Early in the R&D phase of the instrument, theGLAST LAT collaboration developed a computer



simulation of the GLAST design. This simulationincluded essential details of the instrumentdesign, including an accurate representation ofthe detector elements, material dead space, andthe DAQ triggering method. As the R&D phasehas proceeded, we have made this simulationprogressively truer to our design in all detailsincluding an approximation of the spacecraft,which is important when considering back-ground processes. The performance of the earlysimulations was verified during the 1997 elec-tron beam test, and the more detailed simulationswill be further verified during the 1999 beamtest at SLAC. We have used these simulations todevelop event reconstruction algorithms and totest them conceptually. These algorithms arebeing moved to the LAT Beam Test EngineeringModel tower we now have in hand (which willalso be used as a development platform and test-bed) for the real-time flight software implemen-tations. Beam tests of this tower will also beused to validate our flight software. As the con-struction of the instrument develops, we plan toproduce a four by four flight tower assembly thatwill also be used in extensive bench and beamtests to verify our flight software algorithms.Finally, the GLAST LAT project test plan also hasprovision for a beam test of the full GLASTinstrument in a beam that will give further verifi-cation of our final flight software. Using thesevarious test beds, the project will achieve realis-tic verifications of both the flight software andthe simulations & reconstruction algorithms.These test procedures are being prototyped andimplemented well ahead of the I&T phase.

In general, verification and validation (V &V) activities will be performed to ensure thatGLAST software will satisfy its functional, per-formance and quality requirements. The Soft-ware System Manager is responsible forthorough testing of the code, from unit testing,through integration, to acceptance testing. Therole of V & V is to perform analyses throughoutthe development process, to detect problems asearly as possible, preferably before they show upin testing. As mentioned above, varied levels ofsoftware tests, ranging from unit or element test-ing through integration testing and performancetesting, up to software system and acceptance

tests for the completed instrument will be per-formed.

1.6.5 Safety and Hazard MitigationThe IPO will plan and implement a system safetyprogram that identifies and controls hazards topersonnel, facilities, support equipment, and theflight system during all stages of the instrumentdevelopment. System safety requirements willbe derived from EWR 127-1, “Eastern and West-ern Range Safety Requirements,” as well asapplicable safety standards of the institutions inthe instrument team.

During the Formulation Phase, the Instru-ment Safety Officer will perform a hazard analy-sis. This will be a subsystem and system-levelqualitative analysis that identifies all potentialhazards, develops specific mitigation plans, andassures their resolution. All hazards which aredeemed potentially critical will be further listedin the Project Safety Plan. As part of the hazardanalysis process, the Instrument Safety Officerwill work with product design teams to imple-ment hazard controls in the design of hardwareand in the development of process procedures.

Throughout the Implementation Phase,listed hazard risks will be jointly resolvedbetween the responsible functional element andthe Safety Officer. Resolution of each listed haz-ard is accomplished by a safety review of allappropriate test reports, engineering drawingsand analyses, procedures and task flow. Analy-ses developed by other disciplines (FMEA, tradestudies, reliability analyses) will provide input tosupport the safety analysis of failure points thatpresent an hazard risk.

1.7 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH MANAGEMENT PLAN

1.7.1 E/PO Program OutlineThe Education & Public Outreach (E/PO) pro-gram to accompany the LAT Flight Instrumentdevelopment is designed to exhibit gamma-rayastronomy as an exciting field for the public aswell as the researcher. Both young and old canbe engaged by the exotic concepts of black holesand violent explosions seen across the Universe.Thus, the GLAST E/PO program is well suited topromote inquiry into the origin and structure ofthe Universe and the fundamental relationship



between energy and matter, concepts which areincluded in the Physical Science Content Stan-dards A, B, & D for grades 9-12.

Therefore, this Flight Instrument E/PO pro-posal, focuses on the following specific educa-tional goal:

We will utilize the observations and sci-entific discoveries of the GLAST missionto improve the understanding and utiliza-tion of physical science and mathematicsconcepts for grades 9-12.

We will at all times base our educationalmaterials on the National Mathematics and Sci-ence Standards (with major emphasis on Physi-cal Science Content Standards A, B, & D), andwork within the established OSS Education eco-system of the SEU Forum and the Regional Bro-ker/ Facilitators to maximize our programreturns.

Prof. Lynn Cominsky of California StateUniversity at Sonoma (SSU) will serve as the E/PO coordinator. In this capacity, she will workdirectly with and report to the IPI. She willsupervise the work of Dr. Laura Whitlock and ofthe student assistant, and direct efforts for all E/PO WBS elements. Prof. Cominsky will beresponsible for achieving the overall goals, aswell as managing the budget and schedule forthe GLAST E/PO program. She will ensure thatall curricular products are aligned with nationalstandards and are independently and comprehen-sively evaluated. Cominsky will also coordinatethe participation by science team members in theE/PO program activities, and moderate the QuestSpace Science Chats that include science teammembers. Cominsky’s GLAST activities arefunded at 25% time through the GLAST E/PObudget, and are cost-shared for an additional25% time with SLAC, where she has been a visit-ing scientist for the past seven years.

Dr. Laura Whitlock has three main areas ofresponsibility: developing curricular content forthe Web-based educational projects producedwith E/PO partner Videodiscovery, developingspecific curriculum products with E/PO partnerand curriculum development specialists TOPS,and overseeing and managing the GLASTAmbassadors program. As part of the Ambassa-dors program, Whitlock will develop teacher

workshops and will ensure that the workshopsare presented at a wide variety of national, stateand local conferences.

Dr. Helen Quinn (SU-SLAC) will supervisethe creation of an interactive gamma-ray detec-tor exhibit as part of the SLAC Virtual VisitorsCenter. She will also participate with Drs. Whit-lock and Hartmut Sadrozinski (UCSC) in train-ing the GLAST Ambassadors, and in developingcurriculum content for the TOPS modules.

Videodiscovery Inc. will provide the soft-ware, graphics, videos, and other electronicmedia components required to create two SpaceMysteries Series modules and the associatedWeb site.

TOPS Learning Systems will develop 3specific curriculum modules which incorporatephysical science and mathematics concepts forgrades 9-12, derived from the GLAST E/PO edu-cational goal which emphasizes Physical Sci-ences Content Standards A, B & D. TOPS willfield-test these modules in classrooms beforerelease.

WestEd, Inc. will provide both formativeand summative assessment of the GLAST E/POcurriculum products developed in partnershipwith Videodiscovery and TOPS. Assessmenttools and metrics will be developed and utilizedfor the Web-based Space Mystery modules fromVideodiscovery (during FY 2004 and 2005), andfor the more traditional print-based curriculummodules from TOPS (during 2003-2005). Thesemetrics will also assess the training of theGLAST Ambassadors and the training by theGLAST Ambassadors of subsequent generationsof teachers, as well as the content, use in theclassroom and learning by the students.

1.7.2 E/PO PartnersThe E/PO Coordinator has enlisted a number ofpartnering individuals and institutions in devel-oping the E/PO program for the instrument.These are listed below.Sonoma State UniversityDr. Lynn R. Cominsky is Professor of Physicsand Astronomy at Sonoma State University (SSU),and has served as Chair of the Public AffairsWorking Group for the NASA GLAST FacilityScience Team for the past two years. As part ofthis work, (and with the help of SSU undergradu-



ate physics student Tim Graves) she created theGL AS T outreach Web s i te : h t tp: / /www-glast.sonoma.edu. She is also a member of theE/PO team for Swift, a gamma-ray burst MIDEXmission that will be launched in 2003. An authorof over 45 research papers in high-energyastronomy, in 1993 Prof. Cominsky was namedthe Outstanding Professor at Sonoma State Uni-versity and the California Professor of the Yearby the Council for Advancement and Support ofEducation. Cominsky is also Deputy PressOfficer for the American Astronomical Society,Press Officer for the AAS High Energy Astro-physics Division, and the PI on SSU’s successful"Space Mysteries" NASA LEARNERS proposal(developed with Dr. Laura Whitlock.) Prior tojoining the SSU faculty, Cominsky managed var-ious parts of NASA’s Extreme Ultra-VioletExplorer satellite project at the University ofCalifornia Berkeley’s Space Sciences Labora-tory, serving as Software, Operations and DataAnalysis group Administrator and the SciencePayload Development Manager. In this latterposition, she supervised over 70 engineers, tech-nicians, scientists and programmers, and con-trolled a multi-million dollar yearly budget.

Dr. Laura Whitlock, has recently relocatedto SSU to work full time on developing multi-media educational products that use NASA mis-sion data. She was formerly the Education/Out-reach Projects Coordinator at NASA Goddard’sLHEA, where she created, developed, and pro-moted multi-media education and outreachmaterials, emphasizing the effective use of theWorld Wide Web. Her activities have focusedon the field of high-energy astrophysics, notablyon neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, quasars,and other eruptive cosmic sources, bringingthese subjects to a level where K - 12 studentsand teachers can appreciate them. In addition tooverseeing, assisting, and coordinating the E/POefforts of the many missions in LHEA, she is thecreator, designer, and project leader for theaward-winning Imagine the Universe! andStarChild World Wide Web sites (http://imag-in e . gs f c . na s a .go v a nd h t tp : / /starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov). She has written andpublished many teachers’ guides and educationalposters on astronomy and space exploration, and

produced several CD-ROMs used to distributeNASA space science education material. In addi-tion, Dr. Whitlock routinely creates and presentstraining workshops to educators at local, state,and national education meetings, including theNational Science Teachers Association and theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics.These workshops use high-energy astronomydata (including X-ray and gamma-ray observa-tions) to teach national standards in the physicalsciences and mathematics. Dr. Whitlock holdsthe title of Honorary Master Teacher from theNational Teacher Training Institute and is amember of the Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development. She is the Co-PI onSSU’s LEARNERS grant, and a member of theSwift MIDEX E/PO team.Videodiscovery, Inc.Videodiscovery is a leading publisher and dis-tributor of quality, innovative multimedia prod-ucts for educators and families. Renowned for itsaward-winning laserdiscs and CD-ROMs for theK - 12 and college market, Videodiscovery is anestablished new media industry leader. The com-pany has consistently defined the cutting edge inmultimedia education, responding to learningtrends and students’ needs with innovative,engaging applications of interactive media.Based in Seattle, the 15 year-old company spe-cializes in science and math education.

Key personnel from Videodiscovery, Inc.that will participate in the GLAST E/PO programinclude CEO D. Joseph Clark and Vice Presidentof Product Development Shaun Taylor. Dr.Clark founded Videodiscovery in 1983, afterspending nine years as Director of the Center forInstructional Development and Research at theUniversity of Washington, (in Seattle) and fouryears as an Assistant Professor at the Universityof British Columbia. He has a Ph. D. in microbi-ology from UC Davis, and was an NIH post-doc-toral fellow at both UC Berkeley and theUniversity of Copenhagen. Dr. Clark will ensurethat the employees of Videodiscovery providethe necessary tools, drivers, scripts and videoproduction footage needed to complete twomodules of the Space Mystery Series. ShaunTaylor has been employed at Videodiscovery inhis current position since 1986, after receiving



the M. Ed. Degree in secondary education withan emphasis on science teaching and computers,and endorsements in physics and chemistry fromMontana State University. At Videodiscovery,Taylor has produced 36 interactive videodiscs,and 26 CD-ROMs, and has been responsible forthe major content preparation for over $4.2 mil-lion in grants and contracts from governmentagencies. He has also conducted numerousteacher training workshops for interactive pro-gramming and has made many presentations atnational educational conferences. For GLAST,Taylor will direct the project and participate inthe design meetings.

Some of the awards won by Videodiscoveryproducts in the past 5 years include: NewsweekMagazine Editors’ Choice Award; 1996 (ScienceSleuths CD-ROM); Technology & LearningMagazine Software Excellence Award; 1995(Science Sleuths CD-ROM); New Media Maga-zine Invision Awards Silver Medal; 1995 (Sci-ence Sleuths CD-ROM); National ParentingCenter Seal of Approval; 1995 (Science SleuthsCD-ROM); Curriculum Administrator, Dis-tricts’ Choice Award; June 1995 (UnderstandingEarth laserdisc); National Educational Film andVideo Festival, Bronze medal; 1993 (ScienceSleuths laserdisc)

In February 1997, Videodiscovery wasawarded a grant by the National Science Foun-dation for the development and evaluation of aninnovative approach to performance-basedassessment using advanced technology. Thismethodology, and other proprietary softwaredeveloped by Videodiscovery will be licensed atno cost to the GLAST project, for use in thedevelopment of at least two GLAST-inspiredSpace Mysteries (web-based inquiry-drivenexplorations targeted at grades 9-12, and whichteach mathematics and physical science stan-dards.) Videodiscovery is already working withDr. Cominsky and Whitlock to develop threeSpace Mystery modules as part of NASA’sLEARNERS Cooperative Agreement Notice, anda fourth module as part of the Swift MIDEX mis-sion.TOPS Learning SystemsTOPS Learning Systems is a leader in develop-ing high quality curriculum that is aligned with

the National Science and Mathematics stan-dards. They have extensive experience in craft-ing attractive, ready-to-teach lessons thatteachers can use in the classroom with a mini-mum of preparation, and which use simple, inex-pensive materials. As a result, TOPS lessons areactually used by teachers, and don’t just sit onthe shelf. TOPS has created many lessons inphysical sciences and astronomy for grade level9-12. TOPS material is extensively field-testedin classrooms before release to the general edu-cation community.

The key person from TOPS is President andchief curriculum developer Ron Marson. Mar-son has been designing and marketing qualityeducational materials in science and math forover 20 years. Marson is a graduate of SeattlePacific University (B.S. in Chemistry) and Har-vard University (M.A.T. in Science Education).As founder and president of TOPS LearningSystems, a nonprofit educational corporation, hehas developed the curriculum for the entireTOPS catalog of over 40 modules of activities,which include more than 900 different lessons.SU-SLACDr. Helen Quinn is a theoretical particle physi-cist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.She is a fellow of the American Physical Societyand an elected member of the American Acad-emy of Arts and Sciences. She has extensiveexperience in the area of education, both asAssistant to the Director responsible for pre-col-lege and undergraduate education programs atSLAC and as a member of collaborative projectsaimed at improving science teaching in localschool districts. UCSCDr. Hartmut Sadrozinski is Adjunct Professor ofPhysics in the Institute for Particle Physics at theUniversity of California at Santa Cruz. He is anexperimental particle physicist and a specialistin instrumentation. He has used this expertiseand the resources of a modern laboratory to pro-mote scientific methods and thought in groupsunder-represented in science, through bothResearch Experience for Undergraduates (REU)and for Research Experience for Teachers (RET)programs.



QuestThe Quest project is a service of NASA’s Educa-tion Program. Quest is located at Ames ResearchCenter and is managed by NASA’s LearningTechnologies Project (LTP) of the High Perfor-mance Computing and Communications(HPCC) Program. The Space Scientists Onlineprogram explores a rich variety of topics withexciting spacecraft like Mars Pathfinder andHubble Space Telescope, and includes archivesfrom a half-dozen previous projects (e.g., MarsTeam Online). This project provides live eventson the Internet (both chats and audio/video pro-grams) on diverse topics within NASA’s Officeof Space Science.WestEdWestEd is a non-profit research, developmentand service agency dedicated to improving edu-cation and other opportunities for children,youth and adults. WestEd was created in 1995 tounite and enhance the capacity of Far West Lab-oratory and Southwest Regional Laboratory, twoof the nation’s original education laboratoriescreated by Congress in 1966. In addition to itswork across the nation, WestEd serves as theregional education laboratory for Arizona, Cali-fornia, Nevada and Utah.

The key person from WestEd that will directthe GLAST assessment effort is Program Direc-tor for Science and Mathematics, Dr. Steven A.Schneider. Dr. Schneider holds a Ph.D. fromStanford University in Design and Evaluation ofEducational Programs, a bachelor’s degree inBiology from UC Berkeley, and a CaliforniaLife Teaching Credential. He has extensiveexperience in the area of program evaluation,research, and teaching in the areas of science,mathematics, and technology. A few of the pro-grams which Dr. Schneider has evaluated ordirected include: the High School ScienceTeacher Assessment for the National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards (NSF); theNational Hewlett-Packard Company Hands-OnScience Program and the $5.7 million Local Sys-temic Change Project (NSF and HP); the Cali-fornia Mathematics Implementation Study; andthe California’s State Systemic Initiative (SSI)(NSF). Dr. Schneider is currently a member ofthe U.S. Department of Education’s Expert Panel

in Mathematics and Science focusing on devel-oping criteria for identification of exemplary andpromising programs. Dr. Schneider’s evaluation,research, teaching, and leadership expertise andexperience makes him extremely qualified to bethe lead project evaluator for the GLAST E/POprogram.

1.7.3 GLAST Mission E/PO ProgramThe E/PO funds available through the FlightInstrument AO represent only a small fraction(~20%) of the total E/PO funding for the GLASTmission. We propose that the Flight Instrumentteam be given the resources and responsibilityfor the entire mission E/PO effort. NASA policiesrequire a serious commitment of effort to the E/PO effort by the Science team - only the IPI teamcan provide this commitment. The followinglists several additional activities which we haveconsidered, and for which we have committedpartners but that we cannot pursue within thescope of the budget offered by the Flight Instru-ment AO. These activities include, but are notlimited to:GLAST Webcast Projects: Live@The Explor-atorium and NASA QUEST. The world-renowned Exploratorium proposes todevelop and host a series of on-line World WideWeb resources for the GLAST mission. Togetherwith the staff at the Exploratorium, we proposeto host a series of two-hour Internet webcastsover the duration of the project highlighting theGLAST mission. Each of the webcasts will fea-ture discussions of research, presentation ofrecent discoveries, and interaction with theGLAST Science Team. These webcasts will bedone through the "Live@The Exploratorium"program and will be archived to support viewingby students and the public at a later date. In sup-port of these webcasts, the Exploratorium willdesign an accompanying multimedia websiteand other educational materials (see attached let-ter.)

The NASA/Ames Quest project also hasoffered to sponsor webcasts featuring GLASTscience team members, and to host on-lineteacher training workshops (see attached letterof commitment.)



PBS television specialWe have explored working on a one or two hourtelevision show to be shown on PBS. We haveconsidered either an episode of NOVA or anindependent special produced by Thomas Lucas,the award-winning producer of the recent PBSshows Voyage to the Milky Way and Mysteriesof Deep Space (see attached letter of commit-ment.)Additional Space Mystery modules and GEMSguides.

Within the financial constraints of the FlightInstrument AO, we can produce two Space Mys-tery modules. We have successfully competed inthe NASA LEARNERS program, and havereceived funding for an initial three modules. Anadditional module is planned for the Swiftgamma-ray burst MIDEX E/PO program (to bedeveloped by Cominsky and Whitlock, who arealso members of the Swift E/PO team.) This lat-ter module will be developed in collaborationwith personnel at the Lawrence Hall of Science,creators of the Great Explorations in Math andScience (GEMS) guides. We are interested inusing GLAST E/PO project funding to develop atleast two additional Space Mystery modules, aswell at least one additional GEMs guide (seeattached letter of commitment.)

1.8 MAJOR FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

1.8.1 Management, System Engineering, and Performance Assurance

1.8.1.1 SU-SLACThe IPI and LAT IPO will be located at StanfordUniversity, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.The LAT R&D effort at SU-SLAC has beenhoused in existing office and lab space in Build-ing 084 on the SU-SLAC campus. Additionaloffice and lab space has been identified in Build-ing 084 to house the IPO as it grows in size. Thisco-location of the entire instrument staff at SU-SLAC will help to ensure good communicationand teamwork within the organization.

Facilities available on the SU-SLAC campusfor the Instrument Project Office include signifi-cant computing infrastructure and support staff,already in place, supporting the high-energy

physics experimental programs. Videoconfer-encing rooms, high-speed internet access, andtechnical publications and graphic design sup-port will further support the needs of the IPO.The Business Services Division has demon-strated the capability to support the managementof large, international instrument teams, such asthe BABAR particle physics detector.

The system engineering and performanceassurance functions will similarly be supportedby experienced departments, familiar with themanagement of complex systems and processes.Experience in working in the regulatory environ-ment of a Department of Energy National Labo-ratory will prove worthwhile in developingengineering and quality assurance infrastructurefor the GLAST instrument project.

1.8.2 Tracker1.8.2.1 UCSCThe Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics(SCIPP), at the University of California, SantaCruz brings many years of experience in high-energy physics to the team. SCIPP is housed inthe Natural Sciences Building on the UCSC cam-pus. These facilities include office, lab, andclean room space for the full staffing comple-ment for the GLAST effort. The facilities includecomputerized design and test equipment for thedevelopment of complex integrated circuits.1.8.2.2 SU-SLACThe Tracker development effort has been on-going since 1994 in the Research Division atSU-SLAC. This has formed the physical andorganizational nucleus of the IPO, housed inBuilding 084 on the SU-SLAC campus. Thisincludes office and lab space sufficient for theentire Tracker team, located downstairs from theexpected headquarters of the IPO.

Given that the Tracker will be partiallyassembled, and fully integrated at SLAC, the cur-rently available clean room facilities will soonbe augmented. Facilities have been identified forthe Tracker effort, and they will be re-configuredfor this effort, once project approval is given.SLAC’s long experience in the development ofultra-high vacuum systems will aid in the staff-ing of these facilities.



1.8.2.3 INFNThe laboratories of the Italian Institute forNuclear Physics (INFN) are well equipped fordesign, assembly, and testing of large-scale sili-con strip detector systems. Large clean roomfacilities house several precision assembly sta-tions and several automated wire bondingmachines. Moreover the trained staff has devel-oped expertise in recent projects and are ready tostart the GLAST LAT effort. Testing facilities areintegrated into the clean rooms, such that theplanned assembly of a large part of the trackermodules can be supported, starting from the sili-con wafers and ending with tested trays.1.8.2.4 Hiroshima UniversityHiroshima University has high quality cleanrooms and test equipment to support the inspec-tion and testing of silicon microstrip detectors.They will work closely with Hamamatsu Photo-nics, our major supplier of silicon sensors, dur-ing the fabrication cycle on the control of thequality and performance of the silicon detectors.Hiroshima personnel have a long-standing repu-tation in the design and testing of high qualitydetectors, and they will interface with the factoryon a regular basis on QA issues. Hiroshima willperform detailed performance checks (includingradiation testing) on the Tracker silicon detect-ors.

1.8.3 Calorimeter1.8.3.1 NRLNRL’s primary contribution to the GLAST pro-gram is centered in NRL’s Space Science Divi-sion. The SSD has a number of commitments forspace experiments aboard NASA, DoD, andother space projects that include mission opera-tions and data analysis facilities for the OSSEexperiment on NASA's Compton Observatoryand the LASCO experiment on the NASA/ESASolar-Heliospheric Observatory. The Divisionmaintains facilities to design, construct, assem-ble, and calibrate space experiments.

The design, analysis, fabrication and test ofthe GLAST Calorimeter subsystem and theGLAST DAQ subsystem components will be per-formed in the SSD facilities. NRL’s Naval Centerfor Space Technology (NCST) will be utilizedfor environmental testing of the subsystems.NCST’s Design, Test and Processing Branch

provides facilities for spacecraft vibration test,thermal high-vacuum testing, and acoustic rever-beration testing. The Systems Analysis Branchprovides facilities for electronics thermal controlanalysis, modal survey testing and static loadstesting.1.8.3.2 CEAThe Service d'Astrophysique (Sap) of the Com-missariat a l'Energie Atomique is a major spaceastrophysics laboratory with a long history ofhigh-energy astrophysics and multilengthapproach to cosmic rays, compact objects, stellarformation and evolution, interstellar medium,and large-scale structures in the Universe. Thestaff of Sap of ~100 includes astrophysicists andan engineering group for space instrumentation.Sap is part of a department, DAPNIA, which hasbrought together, since 1991, research groups inastrophysics, nuclear and particle physics, alongwith strong technical support groups. DAPNIAgathers over 400 scientists and engineers, and300 technical and administrative staff. Thedesign, fabrication, and integration activities forthe LAT calorimeter will benefit from theunique expertise and solid experience availableinside DAPNIA in space instrumentation, high-energy calorimetry, radiation-hard analog anddigital microelectronics, light detectors, dataacquisition and processing systems, and instru-ment simulations. This experience is drawn from40 years of development of accelerator andspace instrumentation, and the related scientificanalyses. DAPNIA is equipped with many cleanrooms (up to class 100), assembly halls, thermalvacuum test equipment, as well as manufactur-ing and testing equipment. The group takesadvantage of a long tradition in the managementof international ground-based programs andspace missions sponsored by CNES, ESA, andNASA.1.8.3.3 Ecole PolytechniqueThe Institut de Physique Nucleaire et de Phy-sique des Particules (IN2P3) runs 16 nuclear andparticle physics laboratories inside the CentreNational de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS).Three are involved in the LAT proposal, NamelyPhysique Nucleaire des Hautres Energies(LPNHE), at Ecole Polytechnique; Physic queCorpusculaire et Cosmologie (PCC) at College-



de-France; and Centre d’Etudes Nucelaires deBordeaux Gradignan at the University of Bor-deaux. The three laboratories are run jointly byIN2P3 and the institutions which host them.They represent a total of 120 physicists and 140engineering and administrative staff. Thesegroups have had a major impact on the CERNactivities since the sixties on hadronic physicsand weak currents. In recent years, their activi-ties covered quark-gluon search with NA-38 atCERN-SPS, e-p collision on H1 at DESY, e+e-collisions at LEP (ALEPH & DELPHI), onBABAR at SLAC (presently running), and con-struction work for the future LHC. In particular,the mechanical engineering group at LPNHE isinvolved in the design and fabrication of themechanical structure of the WPb04 crystal calo-rimeter of the CMS experiment for LHC, usingcarbon-fiber cells in a focusing geometry.

In the last decade, the three groups havedeveloped activities in high-energy astrophysics.They designed, built, and are now operatingCAT and CELESTE, which represent major suc-cesses in ground-based gamma-ray telescopes.These laboratories have large technical groups,well trained on international scale projects. Inparticular, the mechanical group of 19 engineersand technicians at LPNHE, have complete capa-bilities from design (7 CAD stations) to integra-tion. The workshop is equipped with modernfabrication and testing equipment. A clean roomand assembly hall will be available for LATactivities. The electronics group at CENBG andPCC represent 20 engineers and technicians,fully equipped with CAD stations for electronicsand electrical engineering, and test equipment todevelop the ground support equipment for theFront-end ASIC and acceptance tests. Calorime-ter tests and calibrations will benefit from strongpresence at CERN, with a team member residingthere.

1.8.4 Anticoincidence Detector1.8.4.1 GSFCThe ACD development effort will take place atGSFC. GSFC possesses a full range of state-of-the-art facilities for developing, manufacturing,and testing of flight hardware. GSFC has all therequired office and laboratory space in buildings2, 5, 7, and 23 necessary for the development of

the flight ACD. The center has the necessarythermal vacuum chambers, electromagneticcompatibility (EMC) test facilities, vibration,and acoustic test facilities needed to fully qualifyand test the flight ACD. No major new facilitiesor equipment are required.

1.8.5 Data Acquisition System1.8.5.1 SU-HEPLBased on the W.W. Hanson Experimental Phys-ics Laboratory (HEPL), Stanford University hasdeveloped a comprehensive and effective infra-structure that supports space science programs,including current projects such as Gravity ProbeB (GPB), the Mini Satellite Test of the Equiva-lence Principle (STEP), the Solar OscillationsInvestigation (SOI), the Lambda Point Experi-ment (LPE), the Confined Helium Experiment(CHeX), and the Energetic Gamma Ray Experi-ment Telescope (EGRET). The infrastructureprovides access to services and personnel expe-rienced in program management, procuremnent,production reliability, design, quality assurance,and certified handling of flight hardware. Facili-ties that support research in HEPL include four250-1300 SF class 10,000 clean rooms, one2,500 SF class 100,000 hi-bay with overheadcranes with up to 40-ton capacity, numerouselectronics laboratories with ESD-protected lam-inar-flow benches, meeting rooms, and officespace. Within or in close proximity to HEPL, wehave access to a number of technical servicessuch as machine shops, a microfabrication labo-ratory, welding srevices, electrical and plumbingshops, in-house emergency generators, secureshipping and receiving capability, and bondedstorage. All HEPL facilities are part of a 100MBlocal-area computer network. HEPL is host to theGP-B Mission Operations Center (GMOC). TheGMOC is on the NASA IONET and will operateGPB spacecraft after launch in 2001 using a suiteof software tools including Dataviews, SatelliteTool Kit (STK), RTworks, and Operations andScience Instrument Support (OASIS). HEPL hasan established safety program tied to the Univer-sity’s Environmental Health and Safety Office.Also, ONR currently maintains a quality assur-ance representative at Stanford for governmentreview of space flight programs. Within HEPL,the GLAST Integrated Instrument Demonstration



and Development project presently occupies 12offices, one controlled access electronics labora-tory with ESD-protected lab benches, and onedata processing/meeting room. Additional facili-ties will be made available as required to supportthe GLAST program in the implementationphase.

1.8.6 Grid, Integration and Test1.8.6.1 SU-SLACSU-SLAC will house the integration and func-tional testing of the flight instrument. Integrationclean rooms will form part of the complex ofclean rooms, used also for the Tracker assemblyand testing. SU-SLAC’s extensive experience inthe assembly and operation of large ultra-highvacuum, cryogenic, and high-powered micro-wave assemblies has yielded a large knowledgebase and physical infrastructure to support theGLAST integration facilities.

The SLAC linear accelerator will providehigh-energy electron beams for test and calibra-tion of engineering models and the flight calibra-tion unit and flight instrument. The End StationA facilities have been configured for perfor-mance testing of the GLAST modules. This facil-ity will be used throughout the instrumentdevelopment and implementation for calibrationand test of instrument subassemblies.

1.8.7 Plans for New Facilities1.8.7.1 SU-SLACInstrument processing, assembly and test areaswill be reconfigured to accommodate the uniquerequirements of the GLAST instrument. TheLight Assembly Building, Building 33, will bereconfigured to include clean rooms for Trackerequipment assembly and test, as well as integra-tion of the flight instrument. This facility hasbeen used recently for the assembly of theBABAR Drift Chamber detector subsystem.

1.9 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

As detailed in previous sections, the WBS pro-vides the framework around which the manage-ment organization and plans are built. Cost andschedule control is delegated to subsystem man-agers, and reporting of all subsystem perfor-

mance from lower levels of the WBS flowthrough them.

The WBS also defines all work categoriesand packages for the project. It has been used forall budgeting and scheduling shown in this pro-posal, as well as to define the Statement of Workin Appendix F. The WBS is organized into threegroupings, which are outlined in Table 1.9.1.

Following this in Table 1.9.2 is the WorkBreakdown Structure, expanded to the fourthlevel. WBS levels are defined, assuming the Mis-sion is level 1, Mission Instruments are level 2,and Instrument Subsystems are level 3 elements.WBS level 4, therefore, delineate top-level workpackages for each of the instrument subsystems.

These fourth level elements have been stan-dardized as much as possible across all sub-systems and third level functional elements, toaid future performance tracking and analysis.Elements common to most subsystems are man-agement, reliability and quality assurance, sub-orbital I&T, instrument I&T, mission I&T sup-port, and mission operations and data analysis(MODA) support. Other fourth-level elementsare unique to the subsystem. All elements aredescribed in detail in the Statement of Work inAppendix F. Below the fourth level which isshown, all subsystems have developed expandedand detailed work package and task breakdownsto level six and seven. These were used for bud-get estimating and scheduling purposes, and are

Table 1.9.1: Work Breakdown Structure

Instrument Project Office and System-Level Science

4.1.1 Instrument Management4.1.2 System Engineering4.1.3 Science

Hardware Subsystems4.1.4 Tracker4.1.5 Calorimeter4.1.6 Anticoincidence Detector4.1.7 Data Acquisition4.1.8 Grid

Instrument-Level Functional Groups4.1.9 Integration and Test4.1.10 Performance and Safety Assurance4.1.11 Instrument Operations Center4.1.12 Education and Public Outreach



shown in Appendix H, “Detailed SubsystemBudget Estimates.”



Table 1.9.2: WBS by Fourth Level

4.1.1 Instrument Management4.1.1.1 Project Management at Stanford4.1.1.2 Project Management at SLAC4.1.1.3 Cost & Schedule Control4.1.1.4 Project Database Management4.1.1.5 Administrative Support4.1.1.6 Travel4.1.1.7 Special Studies

4.1.2 System Engineering4.1.2.1 Requirements Management and Design Integration4.1.2.2 Test and Verification Planning4.1.2.3 Systems Analysis4.1.2.4 Qualification & Tracking

4.1.3 Science4.1.3.1 Management4.1.3.2 Science Simulations4.1.3.3 Calibration Requirements & Planning4.1.3.4 Science Data Processing4.1.3.5 Instrument Integration & Test4.1.3.6 Mission Systems Integration & Test4.1.3.7 Mission Operations & Data Analysis

4.1.4 Tracker4.1.4.1 Tracker Management4.1.4.2 Reliability & Quality Assurance4.1.4.3 Tray Subassembly4.1.4.4 Tower Structure & Assembly4.1.4.5 Tracker Test & Calibration4.1.4.6 Suborbital Integration & Test4.1.4.7 Instrument Integration & Test Support4.1.4.8 Mission Integration & Test Support4.1.4.9 Mission Operation & Data Analysis

4.1.5 Calorimeter1.4.5.1 Management4.1.5.2 Reliability & Quality Assurance4.1.5.3 CsI Detector Module4.1.5.4 Analog Front End Electronics4.1.5.5 Structural Support4.1.5.6 Calorimeter Tower Controller4.1.5.7 Calorimeter Assembly4.1.5.8 Test & Calibration4.1.5.9 Design & Verification4.1.5.10 Suborbital Integration & Test4.1.5.11 Instrument Integration & Test Support4.1.5.12 Mission Integration & Test Support4.1.5.13 Mission Operation & Data Analysis

4.1.6 Anticoincidence Detector (ACD)4.1.6.1 ACD Management4.1.6.2 Reliability & Quality Assurance 4.1.6.3 ACD Detectors4.1.6.4 Electronics4.1.6.5 Mechanical Components4.1.6.6 Flight Software4.1.6.7 Suborbital Integration & Test 4.1.6.8 Instrument Integration & Test4.1.6.9 Mission Integration & Test Support4.1.6.10 Mission Operation & Data Analysis

Table 1.9.2: WBS by Fourth Level (Cont.)4.1.7 Data Acquisition

4.1.7.1 DAQ Management4.1.7.2 Reliability & Quality Assurance4.1.7.3 Tower Electronics Module4.1.7.4 Instrument Data Bus4.1.7.5 Spacecraft Interface Unit4.1.7.6 Power Conditioning4.1.7.7 Enclosures4.1.7.8 Cable Harness4.1.7.9 Flight Software4.1.7.10 Ground Support Equipment4.1.7.11 Suborbital Flight Support4.1.7.12 Instrument Integration & Test4.1.7.13 Mission Systems Integration & Test

4.1.8 Grid4.1.8.1 Grid Management4.1.8.2 Reliability & Quality Assurance4.1.8.3 Mechanical Interface4.1.8.4 Structural Analysis & Simulation4.1.8.5 Mechanical Design4.1.8.6 Thermal Design & Analysis4.1.8.7 Manufacturing/Fabrication - Grid4.1.8.8 Manufacturing/Fabrication - Heat Pipes/Radiations4.1.8.9 Thermal Blanket/Shield4.1.8.10 Instrument Integration & Test4.1.8.11 Mission Integration & Test4.1.8.12 Mission Operations & Data Analysis

4.1.9 Integration and Test4.1.9.1 Integration & Test Management4.1.9.2 Reliability & Quality Assurance4.1.9.3 Integration Facilities4.1.9.4 Ground Support Equipment4.1.9.5 Suborbital Integration & Support4.1.9.6 Instrument Integration & Testing4.1.9.7 Mission Integration & Testing

4.1.10 Performance and Safety Assurance4.1.10.1 Performance Assurance Management4.1.10.2 Quality Assurance4.1.10.3 Training4.1.10.4 Records Management4.1.10.5 Safety & Environmental Control

4.1.11 Instrument Operations Center4.1.11.1 IOC Management4.1.11.2 Performance Assurance4.1.11.3 Mission & Operations Planning4.1.11.4 Instrument Operations Center4.1.11.5 Data Processing Facility4.1.11.6 Suborbital Flight Support4.1.11.7 Instrument Integration & Test4.1.11.8 Mission Systems Integration & Test

4.1.12 Education and Public Outreach4.1.12.1 Management4.1.12.2 Reliability & Quality Assurance (Assessment)4.1.12.3 Website 4.1.12.4 Teacher Training4.1.12.5 Curriculum Development/PR4.1.12.6 Exhibits



2.0 Cost PlanCost budgets and breakdowns are presented inthis section, followed in Appendix H by thedetailed budget estimates for each instrumentsubsystem. The total instrument cost for Formu-lation and Implementation of this investigationis $140.6M in FY99 dollars, including a reserveof 25.1%. This budget is comprised of $59.0Mof NASA-funded activity, and $81.6M of contri-butions from both the Department of Energy(DOE) and other domestic and foreign institu-tions. Figure 2.0.1 shows the cost profile for theInstrument project.

For a facility-class instrument project suchas GLAST, the NASA funding resources are seri-ously constrained in both quantity and profile.We have mitigated the risk which is inherent inthe NASA funding plan by assembling a collab-oration which will contribute more than 50% ofthe cost of the LAT. These contributions arephased in order to change the funding profileand provide the resources necessary to beginprocurement of critical long lead items andadvance technology readiness in preparation forthe I-CDR. The integrated cost plan (NASA pluscontributions) allows us to maintain healthybudget reserves averaging 25.1% during devel-opment and reaching 50% on the NASA costsduring integration and testing.

Figure 1.1.2, in Section 1.1.3, illustrates theflow of funds, responsibilities, and technical

direction within the instrument collaborationand with respect to NASA and the other fundingsources.The arrangement shown is advanta-geous in that NASA funding will be directed toinstitutions which have had past involvmentwith NASA. Thus, processing and accounting ofthese funds will be familiar to them. Likewise,DOE funds will be managed by institutions withpast DOE involvment.

Nonetheless, funding and cost activitiesassociated with the instrument will be autho-rized and managed by the IPO at SU-SLAC. Itwill maintain control of cost and schedule of allcontributions with the integrated Project Man-agement Control System discussed inSection 1.2.3.

2.1 COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

2.1.1 Grass-Roots Cost EstimateBudget estimates were developed for each WBSsub-system and functional group. These esti-mates are consistent with the work breakdownstructure, and collect all costs and work associ-ated with the Formulation, Implementation, andOperations Phases of the instrument develop-ment.

To improve accuracy of the estimates, workpackages were typically broken down to levelfive or six of the subsystem WBS. Work pack-ages and item procurements were costed indi-vidually, then costs rolled-up to higher WBSlevels. Costs were estimated using four estima-tion techniques:1. Vendor quotes: quotes for items or services.2. Catalog prices: standard prices for compo-

nents with flight qualification.3. Related experience: estimates based on ex-

perience with similar work packages fromprevious projects, or extrapolated fromknown costs of similar items.

4. Engineering estimates: for less well-definedwork packages, budget estimates may bebased on level-of-effort work plans, or ex-trapolated from past work that is similar inexpected work content, if not in specifictasks.Given the relatively advanced state of the

instrument design for many of the subsystems,estimates of work packages have typically beenbased on quotes, purchase prices, and related

Figure 2.0.1: GLAST Instrument Funding Profile (M$)

40

30

20

10

02000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal Years2004 2005

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Non-NASA CostsNASA Costs

10-998509A98



experience. This is especially the case for signif-icant cost items.

The estimating process was iterative. Initialsubsystem cost estimates were judged for theircompleteness, level of detail, and perceivedquality of estimating. This also gave the IPO afirst look at the total budget. Following the ini-tial estimates, subsystem budgets and plans werechecked for double-counted elements, overlap-ping areas of responsibility, and “hidden”reserve. This coincided with a firming up of theWBS structure for the instrument, and resulted inscope adjustments for several of the subsystems.

Subsystem managers and engineers evalu-ated these scope adjustments, and also firmed upparticipation of team institutions in the collabo-ration. This led to a second set of detailed bud-gets, with much cleaner WBS organization andbetter assignment of responsibilities. While thefocus was to ensure the budget was not too high,this also resulted in increasing budgets for somesubsystems.

Finally, with solid subsystem budgets in-hand, the subsystem managers and the IPO metfor a week to complete a second round ofdetailed checking, and to ensure that adequatereserve was included in the subsystem budgets.These totals have now been used to secure com-mitments from all team institutions, and com-prise the budgets which follow.2.1.2 Cost Estimating Assumptions

Fiscal year 1999 dollars have been used forall cost estimates. Inflation rates were applied togenerate real-year dollar estimates. All institu-tions used the inflation rates as defined in theGLAST AO, with no other rates used. Rates usedare shown in Table 2.1.1

Beyond FY2005, an annual inflation rate of3.9% was used. All values shown in this CostPlan are shown in FY99 values, in thousands ofdollars (K$), unless specifically stated other-wise.

For contributions from foreign institutions,

the exchange rate for October 1, 1999 was usedto determine the dollar value of the contribution.Since all foreign institutions are providing in-kind contributions of personnel and equipment,fluctuations in the exchange rate in future yearswill not affect the total work effort of the foreigninstitution. Furthermore, all major procurementsexpected to be made in foreign countries will befunded by foreign institutions, usually within thecountry. This will also shield the project frompossible negative effects of unforeseen changesin exchange rate.

For the budget estimation process, compo-nents and processes were costed assuming atwo-year mission life. The instrument design isrobust and redundant, and there are no expend-ables or consumables that could limit the life-time. We have attempted to make design choicesto ensure that if parts fail or lose sensitivity theinstrument would degrade gracefully. We canfind no rationale for carrying the burden of five-year class parts, and we expect the instrument tobe working well, even ten years after launch.Furthermore, we estimate that using five-yearclass parts would increase total instrument costby $15M, which would unacceptably increasethe total mission cost. Thus, using two-year lifeparts is a technically and financially conserva-tive choice. It is cost-effective, and does notintroduce significant additional mission risk.2.1.3 Budgeting Bases of Estimates

Budget estimates were generated at the sub-system level, with input from all team institu-tions involved with the subsystem. Below is adescription of the detailed estimating processthat was used by the subsystems.

Management, System Engineering, and Performance and Safety Assurance

Budgets for Instrument Project Office (IPO)staffing were developed using input and guid-ance from a number of sources. First, as theManagement Plan described in this volumeevolved, specific task and duty assignmentswere made to the specific WBS elements withinthe IPO. This, in turn, yielded a list of IPO staffneeded to accomplish the tasks to be completed.

In establishing this staffing plan, experienceat SU-SLAC with PEP-II and BABAR, two recentlarge international projects, was used to calibrate

Table 2.1.1 Inflation Rates Used for Budget

EstimatingFY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05

Inflation Rate 0% 4.1% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%Cumulative Infla-

tion Index1.0 1.041 1.082 1.124 1.168 1.213 1.260



all estimates. For the Management team, specif-ically, experience from these projects wasdirectly applicable to GLAST management.Staffing levels, and ramp-up and ramp-downprofiles were drawn from this history.

System Engineering staffing and budgetswere similarly budgeted from past experience.However, we enlisted a consultant with pastflight-project experience to ensure that all sys-tem engineering tasks were covered, and thatthe staffing plan could adequately support thesystem engineering activities needed for theGLAST flight instrument.

Performance and Safety Assurance budgetswere developed using two techniques. First,each subsystem has included quality assuranceand reliability analysis in their budgets, toensure that all local, subsystem-level qualityassurance needs are costed.

Second, instrument-level Performance andSafety Assurance budgets were estimated usingpast experience with DOE and DOD programs.The work effort budgets were further calibratedby drawing from the flight project experience ofour team institutions. The resultant budgetincludes adequate staffing and consulting ser-vices to ensure that suitable performance assur-ance oversight is implemented in the project.Science

The science cost basis is composed of pastexperience in supporting similar space scienceexperiments. The basis applicable depends onthe particular WBS element which include sci-ence team coordination, instrument operationsplanning, instrument performance modeling andsimulation, science data processing develop-ment, and instrument calibration planning andanalysis. Costs were estimated from a detailedWBS at levels 5 and 6. Costs for the InstrumentScientist (IS), science team coordination, andsupport of science operations and planning arescaled from previous space science programssuch as CGRO/EGRET and SOHO/SOI at SU-HEPL and GSFC, and from large physics experi-ments such as SLD at SU-SLAC. During the For-mulation Phase, the test-validated Monte Carlosimulation software, GLASTSIM, will be used tocalculate technical performance measures andto evaluate instrument configuration trade stud-ies. GLASTSIM will continue to be used duringthe implementation and MO&DA phases to sup-

port instrument calibration and data analysis.Cost estimates for these activities are scaledfrom the current level of effort on the instru-ment technology development. Substantial con-tributions of labor for supporting GLASTSIMfrom UCSC and UW serve to reduce NASA’scosts for this activity. Labor estimates for thedevelopment of science analysis software arescaled from experience at GSFC and SU-HEPLon programs of similar size and complexity,including CGRO/EGRET and SOHO/SOI. Effi-ciency in the science analysis software develop-ment is obtained through leveraging existingFTOOLS software and data analysis expertisedeveloped and maintained at GSFC for EGRET.Labor estimates for planning instrument cali-bration are scaled from SU-SLAC experiencewith the two beam tests during the instrumenttechnology development phase, from SU-HEPLexperience with calibration of the EGRET, MDI,and SETS instruments, and GSFC experiencewith many calibration programs for space sci-ence instruments including EGRET.

Travel costs, salaries, indirect costs, fringebenefits, and telecommunications and reproduc-tion for SU-HEPL personnel are based on thesame estimation basis as described for SU-HEPLmanagement costs.

TrackerWork tasks and products were budgeted at WBSlevel seven, or the individual part level. Thebudgeted cost for the silicon strip detector costswas the procurement cost for SSDs for theBTEM. We have been assured lower unit costsfor our production run, but felt it conservativeto use the actual cost paid for past orders. ASICprocurement costs were similarly based on ourdirect experience with the BTEM. Custom struc-tural parts for the Tracker tray and tower assem-blies were estimated by Hytec, our engineeringconsultants, based on their experience with fab-rication of carbon-carbon composite structuresof similar complexitiy. Our experience with theBTEM provided a useful calibration of theseestimates.

Engineering design and development timesand costs were estimated using three tech-niques. First, for engineering of the structuralcomponents, bids from Hytec were checked,then used in the budget. These are based on



their experience in the design of compositestructures and, specifically, in their recent workin developing and fabricating prototype Trackerstructures, and structures for the BTEM.

The second estimating method parsed thedevelopment work into discrete packages ofanalysis and drafting. Using models developedfrom past work at SU-SLAC, time and cost esti-mates were assigned to these packages. The finalestimation method used for engineering workwas scaling from past projects. Development ofthe Front-End Electronics, and some of the inte-gration and test facility was budgeted based onsimilar development work done for the BaBarSilicon Vertex Tracker.

Production and assembly costs for SSDinspection, assembly, and verification testingwere estimated from detailed work-flow analysisof the production work. Individual work tasksand stations were detailed, then time estimatesassigned independently by separate groups tocalibrate the estimating process. These produc-tion times were based on directly applicableexperience with the BABAR Silicon VertexTracker at SU-SLAC, and on the OPAL andNOMAD silicon detector assemblies at CERN.These silicon trackers used double-sided tech-nology with on-board electronics, making themmuch more complex than the GLAST Trackerdesign. Thus, they served as conservative basesfor our time estimates.

The individual work package estimateswere rolled up into production line through-putrates by scaling by quantity, introducing latencyand “dead” time rates averaging 25%, and estab-lishing the number of parallel production linesneeded to accomplish the work. This resultedboth in a realistic estimate of the total productionjob, as well as an estimate of the number andcomplexity of the production fixturing. Fixturingand equipment costs were derived from catalogprices and quotes for standard equipment, suchas wire bonders and probe stations, and fromactual fixturing fabrication costs for BTEM fix-tures.

Finally, as the BTEM has been completedthis past summer, these estimates were modifiedto reflect the lessons learned from assemblingSSDs and trays.CalorimeterThe calorimeter subsystem design and fabrica-

tion is a collaboration among the NavalResearch Laboratory (NRL), Commissariat àl'Energie Atomique/ Département d'Astrophy-sique, de physique des Particules, de physiqueNucléaire et de l'Instrumentation Associée (CEA/DAPNIA), Institut National de PhysiqueNucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3)in France, and the Royal Institute of Technology(KTH) and Stockholm University in Stockholm,Sweden. These institutions have designed andbuilt many experiments for space flight onNASA, DOD, ESA and other French missions aswell as complex experiments for high energyparticle physics.

The calorimeter subsystem basis for costsderive from one or more of the three followingsources:1. Grassroots estimation based on WBS Dictio-

nary description work packages and deliver-ables to level 5 or 6.

2. Actual designs, procedures, and costs associ-ated with the fabrication and test of the BeamTest Engineering Model (BTEM) calorimetermodule which has been completed as part ofthe technology development program.

3. Relevant experience at NRL and CEA onspace missions of comparable complexityand technology. Examples of such missionsare CGRO/OSSE (NRL, NASA) and INTE-GRAL (CEA, ESA).Volume 2, Appendix H contains supporting

detail for the NASA costs for the calorimetersubsystem. Description and cost basis for mate-rials and equipment are also included. Table2.1.2 shows the cost basis for the various ele-ments in the calorimeter subsystem WBS.ACDThe ACD cost was determined from a grassrootsestimate based on a detailed WBS. Estimateswere determined down to WBS level five, and insome cases down to level six, especially wherehardware/software component development wasinvolved. Staffing levels were estimated by laborclassifications. Material and subcontracts wereestimated for each of the WBS sub-levels by tak-ing into account make-or-buy decisions, long-lead procurements, and risk factors.

The engineering design, development dura-tion, staffing levels and associated costs werebased on similar flight hardware assemblies that



GSFC has worked on in the past. The develop-ment costs associated with the assembly andintegration of the detector sub-assembly (plasticscintillator tiles, wave-shifting fibers, andPMTs) are based on previous flight experiencewith similar detectors done on EGRET and onprototype work done on the BTEM during thispast summer. Analog ASIC development dura-tion, staffing levels and costs were based onGSFC’s previous experience developing theanalog ASICs for the Calorimeter BTEM.Development costs associated with the flightPrinted Circuit Boards (PCBs) are based on sim-ilar development costs for boards of similar sizethat have been developed at GSFC for theCassini/Composite Infrared Spectrometer(CIRS) flight instrument electronics and Micro-wave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) flight instrumentelectronics.

In the case where the actual flight compo-nent to be used was known, the current price ofthe component was used in the cost estimate.Price quotes were obtained for key componentsthat are used in large quantities, such as theActel FPGA and the Hamamatsu PMTs (R1635and R5900). The costs of the plastic scintillatortiles and the waveshifting fibers were based onprocurement costs associated with the BTEMunit.

The full cost accounting estimates for theGSFC portion of this proposal have been devel-oped in accordance with GSFC’s guidelines fordeveloping proposals using full cost principles.NASA’s approach to full cost assigns all agencycosts, including Civil Service personnel andtravel costs, to major programs or activities. DAQThe DAQ cost basis is composed of past experi-ence in building similar subsystems for spaceflight and vendor quotations for parts and ser-vices. The basis applicable depends on the par-ticular WBS element. Parts and Materials. For each element, whereapplicable, parts and materials were estimatedfrom either previous purchases of parts for otherprojects or from new vendor quotations. TheTCPU board has been prototyped using com-mercial parts and flight equivalents have beenidentified. The cost of these flight parts wasestablished on another program (NEMO) and isin accord with our experience for similar parts

purchases on previous programs (e.g. USA/ARGOS processor boards). An itemized list ofTCPU parts with costs for flight versions of eachpart was used to estimate the cost basis for theTCPU boards. Fabrication, assembly, and testcosting follows experience on these and otherprevious space flight programs together withvendor estimates for the flight version of proto-type boards. The IO boards which provideLevel 1 Trigger and Read Out functions consistprimarily of FPGA and LVDS devices. New ven-dor quotations for flight parts were received forthese devices--which contribute the primaryportion of the parts cost of these boards. TheDAQ costs include the purchase of all FPGAs tobe used in the Instrument as well as all of thePower Supplies. The joint purchase of commonparts is designed as a cost saving measure and isone of the "Lessons Learned" from previousprojects. Power Supplies.The cost of power supplies is asignificant item within the DAQ budget. TheDAQ provides all power supplies for the Instru-ment and we will utilize a common purchase ofthese units. The costing is based on quotationsand discussions with 2 different vendors andcatalog prices from a third vendor. During theFormulation Phase, we will select one vendorand cost will be a major criteria.Flight Harness. The flight harness cost esti-mate is based on a count of the number of sig-nals, cables, and connectors required to supportthe Instrument. The cable harness concept wasdeveloped to facilitate manufacturing of thecable harness with cost as a factor. The simpli-fied design of the cables permits easy assemblyand testing with a minimum amount of NRE.Allowance is made in the Cable Harness WBSfor all aspects of the cable harness acquisitioncost including requirements, specifications,vendor selection, and testing. Spacecraft Interface Unit. The two SpacecraftInterface Units will include TCPU boards identi-cal to those in the other Instrument modules andare costed under the TCPU WBS. The powerswitching, 1553B, and SSR interface portions ofthe SIU are based on previously developedinterfaces on the NEMO project and will bedesigned and built by the same vendor. The costfor the SIU is based on vendor estimates usingthis prior experience.



EM Units. The cost basis for EM units wasobtained in a similar way to the flight units butwith non-flight parts and reduced screening andtesting requirements. The cost of the Test Bedand simulators is based on similar VME boardsdeveloped during the ATD phase. Data Switch FPGA. The DSF is composed ofthe Data Switch FPGA and associated links. Apreliminary version was developed and testedduring the ATD phase to read out the detectorsubsystems. Integration of the functions requiredfor the flight version of the DSF will proceedduring the Formulation phase with the NRL ven-

dor who is an expert in this area. Costing isbased on an estimate from the NRL vendor. Travel. Travel costs are based on estimating thenumber of trips, persons, and duration for eachlocation using projected costs for airfare, carrental, and per diem. Labor. Labor costs are based on current salariesand expected duration for each task. Software. Software costs are extrapolated fromthe current cost of licenses (including the Tor-nado II development environment suite,VxWorks, Cadence, IDL, and other general pur-pose packages) and estimates for some addi-

Table 2.1.2 Cost Basis for Calorimeter Subsystem by WBS ElementWBS Element Cost Basis

4.1.5.1Management

Mgmt Labor (NASA, French)- Level of Effort based on previous NASA programs of equivalent or larger magnitude, eg. CGRO/OSSETravel (NASA, French,Swedish)– Based on planning for 6 formal reviews, quarterly team mtgs, quarterly Calorimeter team mtgs, and quarterly status reviews. Reviews/mtgs alternate east coast – west coast. Cal mtgs alternate US – France.

4.1.5.2R&QA

Labor (NASA, French, Swedish)- Level of Effort based on previous NASA programs of equivalent or larger magnitude, eg. CGRO/OSSE

4.1.5.3CsI Detector

Module

Labor (Swedish, French Cost)– Based on actual labor hours from fabrication of BTEM module scaled for 20% increase in flt module size and factor for R&QA procedures.CsI crystals (Swedish cost) – based on actual cost of BTEM crystals and results of acceptance testing for rejection. Quotes from two vendors (Crismatec and Amcrys-H) were obtained for the size, quantity and delivery schedule for flight.PIN Photodiodes (French cost) ) – based on actual cost of BTEM photodiodes and results of acceptance testing for rejection. Quote from Hamamatsu Photonics was obtained for the size, quantity and delivery schedule for flight Acceptance Test Equip (Swedish, French Costs) – based on actual cost of assembly of equipment and procedures for BTEM acceptance testing.

4.1.5.4Analog Front End

Electronics

ASIC design and fab (French Cost) – based on considerable experience with other flight ASIC programs (eg. INTE-GRAL/ISGRE)Front End Boards (NASA)– based on actual costs of design and fab of BTEM boards scaled for parts quality and R&QA procedures. Considerable experience with design, fab, and test of similar boards at NRL applies as well.

4.1.5.5Compression Cell

(French Cost) Based on actual details for design and fabrication of BTEM compression cells which has successfully completed qualification level vibration testing. Costs considered and adapted to the French design and fabrication methodology.

4.1.5.6Cal Controller

(NASA)– based on actual costs of design and fab of BTEM controller scaled for parts quality and R&QA procedures. Considerable experience with design, fab, and test of similar boards at NRL applies as well

4.1.5.7Assembly

Labor (NASA)– Based on procedures and actual labor hours from assembly of BTEM module scaled for 20% increase in flt module size and factor for R&QA procedures. GSE (NASA) – based on equipment assembled for BTEM assembly testing. Quantities based on parallel operations in manufacturing plan.

4.1.5.8Test & Calibration

Labor (NASA)– Based on procedures and actual labor hours from test of BTEM module. EGSE (NASA) – based on equipment assembled for BTEM testing and previous beam test experiments.MGSE (NASA) – based on actual costs of fixtures and shipping containers fabricated for BTEM support.

4.1.5.9Design &

Verification

Simulations Labor (NASA, France) – level of effort supportSystem Engineering (NASA, France) – based on experience from previous flight programs at NRL and CEA/DAPNIA (France)Beam Tests (NASA) – based on costs and test plans from three previous beam tests and planning for BTEM tests.

4.1.5.10SubOrbital Flight

I&T

Labor (NASA) – based on level of effort and duration of support from typical balloon flight experience at NRL and GSFC.Travel (NASA) – based on number of people and duration in field for CONUS balloon flight.

4.1.5.11Instrument I&T

Labor (NASA) – based on level of effort and duration for cal subsystem science and engineering support of integration and test. Staffing plan includes continuous on-site support as well as multi-shift support for environmental testing.Travel (NASA) - on-site support of I&T plan, includes over 135 man-weeks of per diem and associated flights NRL – Stanford.

4.1.5.12Mission I&T

Labor (NASA) – based on level of effort and mission I&T duration. Cal subsystem science and engineering support present for all major functional and environmental testing.



tional software at later phases. GridThe Grid support structure, thermal blanket, andradiator costs were estimated by Lockheed-Martin Advanced Technology Center. Workpackages were estimated down to the lowestlevel of work, or parts fabrication, where appli-cable. LM-ATC experience with compositestructures and satellite thermal managementwas brought to bear in estimating design anddevelopment times for the Grid carbon-fibercomposite (CFC) structure, as well as for thethermal analysis and sizing of the heat pipes andradiators.

Fabrication costs for the Grid were esti-mated from engineering drawings of the engi-neering model, by personnel with directfabrication experience in flight composite struc-tures.

The detailed budget estimate of this sub-contracted work is proprietary, and not includedin this Cost Plan. However, information regard-ing the estimate can be requested from theDefense Contract Audit Agency, Ronald Hop,Resident Auditor; Phone: 408-742-5991. Integration and Test

Integration and Test estimates have beenbased on a detailed level six and seven break-down of all work packages to the detailed partand process level. This ensures that all aspectsof the I&T process are included.

Sub-orbital flight integration was estimatedby GSFC personnel, based on their experiencein mounting similar balloon campaigns fornumerous other flight instruments. This wasdone with the aid of the GSFC LHEA, a teaminstitution.

Ground Support Equipment development,fabrication, and testing was budgeted by SU-SLAC. This was done at the individual compo-nent level, based on experience from integrationof similarly complex instruments for the BABAR

high-energy physics detector and the PEP-IIultra-high vacuum beam transport system.While these were not space flight systems, theirlevel of complexity, cleanliness, fragility, andfault-tolerance closely matches that of the LATinstrument.

The estimate for environmental testing is ahigh average of budgetary quotes from Lock-heed-Martin Missiles and Space, and TRW.

While these are not formal quotes, they havebeen based on conservative test specificationsfor the instrument.

Functional testing for the integrated instru-ment has been budgeted two ways. First all test-ing specific to a subsystem has been budgetedin the subsystem budget. This includes pre- andpost-integration testing, and support for func-tional testing at the environmental test facility.Instrument-level testing is included in the I&Telement, and has been budgeted by developingwork tasks for an instrument test team, thenbudgeting for this team through the entire inte-gration and test cycle.Instrument Operations Center

The cost estimate for the IOC is based onscaling from the experience of SU-HEPL andGSFC for similar flight instrument programs,and from the experience of SU-SLAC for dataprocessing of similar scale physics experiments.The Solar Oscillations Investigation (SOI),based in SU-HEPL, operates the MichelsonDoppler Imager (MDI) on the SOHO spacecraft.MDI produces approximately the same data rateas GLAST and the MDI portion of the SOHOoperations environment has the same architec-ture and interfaces as that planned for GLAST.The MDI instrument is operated from a SU-HEPL managed facility in the SOHO EOF atGSFC and performs most of the same functionsanticipated for the GLAST IOC under WBS4.1.11.4. The SOI Science Support Center(SSSC), located in SU-HEPL, performs the level1 and 2 data processing for MDI, similar inscope as planned for the LAT DPF under WBS4.1.11.5. The same interfaces exist between theMDI EOF, SSSC, and the SOHO Science Opera-tions Center (SOC) and Mission OperationsCenter (MOC) as will exist between the GLASTIOC, DPF, SOC and MOC. SU-HEPL managedthe mission operations planning and instrumentintegration and test support for MDI. The MDIintegration and test effort was supported by theoperations team in much the same manner asenvisioned for LAT. Labor levels specified forthe LAT IOC are consistent with those of SOI forsimilar activities. Computer equipmentexpenses are based on current procurementcosts for equivalent workstations, peripheralsand servers.

The detailed costing of the LAT data pro-



cessing facility is based upon the experience ofthe SU-SLAC SLD experiment which had similardata rates and volumes to what is expected forGLAST. The major elements of the facility areshown in Table 2.1.3, along with an effort esti-mate.

The server estimates are based on projec-tions made by the author of the SLD processingserver when SLD was planning on rewriting itsserver for a new platform. The MC server wouldbe closely related to the data server. Extra effortis assigned for the MC server for actually run-ning it during the Formulation and Implementa-tion Phase period for instrument studies. Laborestimates for the DPF are consistent with theexperience of SU-HEPL on SOI.

Travel costs, salaries, indirect costs, fringebenefits, and telecommunications and reproduc-tion for SU-HEPL personnel are based on thesame estimation basis as described for SU-HEPLmanagement costs.Education and Public Outreach

Materials costs were budgeted based onsimilar quantities and types of materials (CDs,brochures, posters, teacher’s guides) printed atthe GSFC LHEA. LHEA experience was alsoused to estimate the costs of attending educatorconferences, and for developing the exhibit forsuch conferences. SSU salaries were budgetedbased on the level of effort expected from pastexperience at LHEA in developing similar educa-tional products and website development andmaintenance.

Travel costs were budgeted based on currentairfare and per diem rates for trips to the EastCoast; this is a conservative estimate, as not alltrips will be cross-country. Teacher stipendswere budgeted based on the standard amount ofsummer salary requested by high-school teach-ers that we surveyed.

Sub-contracts to VideoDiscovery and TOPSLearning Systems were comparable in cost permodule developed and were taken from writtenbids for this work. We received two bids forassessment activities; that from WestEd,although more expensive, included work thatwas considerably more comprehensive andtherefore better matched to the NASA E/PO crite-ria.2.1.4 Parametric Cost EstimateAt our request, the Goddard Resources AnalysisOffice (RAO) undertook a parametric cost studyof the LAT instrument. Although we believe ourdesign approach should help keep this missionbelow the historical cost curve, the parametriccosting is valuable to confirm the validity of ourgrass-roots cost. The parametric costs were gen-erated using the Multivariable Instrument CostModel (MICM), whose fundamental inputparameters are mass, power, data rate, and tech-nology readiness level. These parameters weregiven separately for the Tracker, Calorimeter,Data Acquisition System, Anti-CoincidenceDetector and mechanical support Grid, alongwith a description of the category, heritage andcomplexity of the various subsystem technolo-gies. To obtain the basic instrument cost, themodel was first used to estimate costs of the firsttower of modular components (Tracker, Calo-rimeter, Data Acquisition System). Then costswere estimated for the remaining 15 towers,which do not carry non-recurring engineeringcosts, and, finally, the cost of the ACD and Grid,which are not modular.

The project construction duration wasassumed to be 39 months, and the costs weregenerated as an out-of-house build, relative toGSFC. The mission class was 1.301 (two-yearclass), in line with our overall goal of maximiz-ing the scientific capabilities of the instrumentunder the constraint of the cost cap (as discussedin 2.1.2, above).

According to the model, the instrument costis $124M, in FY99 dollars. Generic costs forIntegration and Test (20%), Fee (5%), and Con-tingency (35%) were included. The instrumentcost for a five year mission life was estimated tobe $139M .

Costs are for Formulation and Implementa-tion Phases and are based on the technology

Table 2.1.3 Labor Estimates for Significant Data Processing Facility Activities

Item FTE’sFully automated data processing server 1Multi-pass filters for Level 1 data 0.5Relational database for the processing state 0.5Experiment monitoring and feedback 3Remote data mirror 1Fully automated Monte Carlo server 1Total 7



readiness levels attained from the seven-yearmulti-agency $10 million technology develop-ment program for this instrument. Overall, weconsider the grass-roots cost to be adequatelyconfirmed by the parametric study.

Details of the RAO parametric estimate areincluded in Appendix H.

2.2 BUDGET RESERVE STRATEGY

Budget reserves have been rolled-up to theinstrument level, and are shown in Table 2.1.4.Reserve has been allocated both to fit the tightfunding profile, and to reflect the level of matu-rity of the design in different phases, and thelevel of risk associated with the phase of theproject.

As shown in the table, both NASA and DOEcosts carry an average reserve of 25.1%. Allother domestic contributors are bringing inlevel-of-effort salaries of individuals, where noreserve is needed. Additionally, every foreigncontribution is either guaranteed by the contrib-uting institution, or carries its own reserve.

Reserve during Formulation Phase is rela-tively low, given the advanced state of designfor a number of the subsystems, and the nega-tive annualized funding profile for the NASA-funded institutions in FY 2001.

During Implementation Phase, throughintegration and testing, reserves grow with theincreased risk of negative cost variances. Inaddition to the 50% NASA reserve, and 45%DOE reserve held during FY 2004, the mainintegration and test year, the Integration andTest budget plan includes a funded schedulereserve of three months. This reserve represents20% of the integration budget.

As discussed in Section 1.2.3, the Inte-grated Project Management System to be imple-mented for the LAT will track cost and scheduleactual costs and variances for all subsystems.These variances will be used to provide

monthly updates of instrument cost and vari-ances, which will be compared with the phasedbudget. For foreign team institutions, earned-value performance metrics will be used to char-acterize work progress towards pre-establishedmilestones.

This process recognizes that it is not possi-ble to remain within the initial cost objectivesfor every subsystem. The responsibility formanaging the variances lies with each sub-system manager. However, if cost or schedulevariances for the subsystem deviate from thebudget baseline, the Configuration Controlmethodology discussed in Section 1.2.2.3 willensure that overall instrument technical andbudget reserves are managed.

This method of controlling variances andmanaging reserves will allow the IPM flexibilityin allocating reserve, by holding all reserve atthe instrument project level, and not pre-allocat-ing it to subsystems. The reporting and correc-tion planning will also ensure that reserve isused sparingly, as part of the overall risk mitiga-tion plan discussed, and not simply as a stop-gap measure.

2.3 FORMULATION PHASE COST PROPOSAL

2.3.1 Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet SF1411The Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet,SF1411, is included as Appendix G.

2.3.2 Workforce Staffing PlanA summary of staffing for the FormulationPhase effort is shown in Table 2.3.1. A detailedbreakdown of staff by subsystem, showing keypersonnel for the instrument project and foreach subsystem is given in Table 2.3.2. Thesetables include all personnel working directly on

Table 2.1.4 Budget Reserve (FY99 K$)

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 TotalNASA Costs w/out Reserve $3,288 $3,596 $12,022 $13,976 $10,382 $3,458 $46,722Budget Reserve % 5.00% 0.00% 14.70% 24.30% 50.00% 50.00% 26.21%Budget Reserve $ $164 $0 $1,767 $3,396 $5,191 $1,729 $12,248DOE Costs w/out Reserve $3,337 $6,389 $5,577 $6,886 $4,018 $2,496 $28,703Budget Reserve % 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 45.00% 30.00% 23.29%Budget Reserve $ $334 $958 $1,115 $1,721 $1,808 $749 $6,686



the instrument, at all of the institutions involved.Staffing values are shown in staff-years.

The staffing plans shown were developedduring the budget estimating process, from bot-toms-up estimates of work tasks and work pack-ages. Costing for the staffing shown is reflectedin the cost tables which follow. Labor and otherrates for staff are tabulated in Section 2.7 “Insti-tutional Bases of Estimates.”

There are three trends in the staffing plan tonote. First, since the project is expected to beginhalf way through FY2000, the staffing levels, instaff-years, for FY2000 represent essentiallytwice the number shown in actual personnel onthe project.

Second, and related to this, the Calorimetershows fairly high staffing, compared to othersubsystems, with no characteristic slow start dueto the half fiscal year in FY2000. This is duealmost entirely to the French contribution to theCalorimeter. Their project funding began inOctober, 1999, so they have already staffed upfor their involvement in GLAST. Thus, theirFY2000 staffing is for nearly the entire fiscalyear. Also, their contribution includes significantscience contributions in the simulation of theCalorimeter. Finally, their effort includes a rela-tively large management staff to monitor theefforts of the various French team institutions.

The third trend in staffing is apparent in thedetailed staffing numbers. While Science andSystem Engineering are identified and staffed asseparate cost elements, with discrete system-level statements of work, each hardware sub-system carries scientists and engineers, as well.Their efforts include science simulations andsystem engineering activities, but are focussed

Table 2.3.2 Staffing Breakdown for Formulation Phase (staff-yr)

WBS Labor Total FY2000 FY2001 Total4.1.1 Management 3.37 9.04 12.41

Prinicpal Investigator 0.31 0.63 0.94Instrument Technical Manager 0.25 0.50 0.75Instrument Project Manager 0.50 1.00 1.50Management Staff 1.24 4.67 5.91Science and Engineering Staff 1.06 2.25 3.31Technicians and Others 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.1.2 System Engineering 2.13 7.79 9.92Instrument System Engineer 0.50 1.00 1.50Management Staff 0.50 1.00 1.50Science and Engineering Staff 1.13 5.54 6.67Technicians and Others 0.00 0.25 0.25

4.1.3 Science Support 5.35 8.53 13.87Instrument Scientist 0.40 0.80 1.20Management Staff 0.25 0.40 0.65Science and Engineering Staff 3.95 6.83 10.77Technicians and Others 0.75 0.50 1.25

4.1.4 Tracker 12.02 25.30 37.32Tkr Subsystem Manager 0.61 1.23 1.84Tkr Subsystem Engineer 0.51 1.03 1.54Management Staff 2.00 4.00 6.00Science and Engineering Staff 7.77 13.44 21.20Technicians and Others 1.13 5.61 6.73

4.1.5 Calorimeter 30.94 36.09 67.04Cal Subsystem Manager 0.82 0.54 1.36Cal Subsystem Engineer 0.75 1.00 1.75Management Staff 3.67 5.06 8.73Science and Engineering Staff 15.57 18.42 33.98Technicians and Others 10.14 11.08 21.22

4.1.6 Anticoindence Detector 5.12 8.23 13.36ACD Subsystem Manager 0.45 0.60 1.05Management Staff 0.77 1.43 2.21Science & Engineering Staff 3.45 5.60 9.05Technicians & Others 0.45 0.60 1.05

4.1.7 Data Acquisition System 6.42 10.14 16.56DAQ Subsystem Manager 0.37 0.65 1.02Management Staff 0.45 0.75 1.20Science and Engineering Staff 4.78 7.39 12.17Technicians and Others 0.83 1.35 2.18

4.1.8 Grid 1.12 3.62 4.74Grid Subsystem Manager 0.19 0.62 0.81Management Staff 0.00 0.13 0.13Science and Engineering Staff 0.80 2.06 2.86Technicians and Others 0.13 0.81 0.93

4.1.9 Integration and Test 0.41 2.86 3.27Integration and Test Manager 0.00 1.04 1.04Management Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00Science and Engineering Staff 0.35 0.78 1.12Technicians and Others 0.07 1.04 1.11

4.1.10 Perf., Safety Assurance 0.83 3.33 4.17Performance Assurance Manager 0.50 1.00 1.50Management Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00Science and Engineering Staff 0.33 2.33 2.67Technicians and Others 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.1.11 Instrument Operations Center 0.91 0.48 1.39IOC Manager 0.09 0.03 0.12Management Staff 0.03 0.05 0.08Science and Engineering Staff 0.80 0.40 1.20Technicians and Others 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.1.12 Education, Public Outreach 0.64 0.89 1.53EPO Coordinator 0.20 0.20 0.40Management Staff 0.00 0.25 0.25Science and Engineering Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00Technicians and Others 0.44 0.44 0.88Total Staffing 69.26 116.31 185.57

Table 2.3.1 Staffing Summary for Formulation

Phase (staff-yr)WBS LaborTotal FY2000 FY2001 Total4.1.1 Management 3.37 9.04 12.414.1.2 System Engineering 2.13 7.79 9.924.1.3 Science Support 5.35 8.53 13.874.1.4 Tracker 12.02 25.30 37.324.1.5 Calorimeter 30.94 36.09 67.044.1.6 Anticoindence Detector 5.12 8.23 13.364.1.7 Data Acquisition System 6.42 10.14 16.564.1.8 Grid 1.12 3.62 4.744.1.9 Integration and Test 0.41 2.86 3.274.1.10 Perf., Safety Assurance 0.83 3.33 4.174.1.11 Instrument Operations Center 0.91 0.48 1.394.1.12 Education, Public Outreach 0.64 0.89 1.53

Total Staffing 69.26 116.31 185.57



on the subsystem element. This is especiallytrue in the Formulation Phase, when overallsystem requirements and interfaces are beingflowed down to the subsystems. These sub-system personnel are the conduits for this flow-down and run the simulations and provide datato develop the interface requirements for theirsubsystem.2.3.3 Formulation Phase Time-Phased Cost SummaryCosts for the Formulation Phase are shown inthe sections to follow. To simplify the layout,and facilitate direct comparison of tables, allpage-length tables have been collected inSection 2.3.3.4. These full-page tables are:

2.3.3.1 Total Formulation Phase CostTable 2.3.4 summarizes costs for the instrumentby WBS element. These are total costs for theelement, independent of funding source, and arerolled up from significantly more detailed bud-get breakdowns for each subsystem. Unless spe-cifically stated, all costs shown here andelsewhere in this section are in FY 1999 thou-sands of dollars (FY99k$), with no inflation,and assuming no full-cost accounting for NASAinstitutions. Tables and budgets including infla-tion and/or NASA full cost accounting will be solabeled.

Two trends are apparent in these rolled-upsummaries. First, since the project starts inquarter three of FY2000, the budget for FY2000only covers six months. Thus, the budgetedmonthly rate of expenditure for the FormulationPhase is actually flat, approximately $1.85Mper month. This flat spending profile resultsfrom the significant and early contributions ofresources from other domestic and foreign insti-

tutions. The allocated monthly funds providedby NASA actually drop by 50% from FY 2000to FY 2001. Without the other contributions,this would have introduced a significant sched-ule risk very early in the project, where person-nel are needed to aggressively continue thedevelopment of instrument technologies, andput into place the System Engineering and Man-agement infrastructure for the remainder of theproject.

The second important trend is that Manage-ment, System Engineering, and PerformanceAssurance, show a sharp increase in fundingduring the Formulation Phase to support theInstrument Project Office (IPO), which is vitalto guiding this project through to successfulimplementation. As can be seen in the follow-ing section, nearly the entire IPO is funded fromDepartment of Energy (DOE) funds, throughSU-SLAC.

A complete summary and further analysisof the total instrument cost is provided inSection 2.6.2.3.3.2 Cost Breakdown by Cost TypeTable 2.3.5(a) shows costs, divided by costtype. For NASA costs, the table shows costs cat-egorized by Labor (both Civil Servant and Con-tractor), Material and Equipment, Sub-Contracts, and Reserves for each subsystemreceiving NASA funds. Costs are shown for For-mulation Phase only, with FY99 kilo-dollars onthe left, and Real Year kilo-dollars on the right.These categories include the following:Labor. All direct labor budgeted for work atteam institutions. This includes civil servants ofthe federal government at GSFC and NRL, as

Table 2.3.4 Total Formulation Phase Costs by WBS Element (FY99 K$)

WBS Subsystem FY00 FY01 Total4.1 Instrument Total $11,608 $21,956 $33,5644.1.1 Instrument Management $552 $1,270 $1,8224.1.2 Systems Engineering $524 $1,294 $1,8174.1.3 Science $611 $936 $1,5464.1.4 Tracker $3,234 $7,613 $10,8474.1.5 Calorimeter $4,130 $6,560 $10,6904.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $529 $624 $1,1534.1.7 Data Acquisition System $1,357 $1,630 $2,9874.1.8 Grid $251 $779 $1,0304.1.9 Integration and Testing $93 $446 $5394.1.10 Performance Assurance $135 $629 $7654.1.11 Instrument Operations Ctr $156 $91 $2484.1.12 Education & Outreach $36 $84 $120

Table 2.3.3 List of Formulation Phase Cost

TablesTable Title2.3.5 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type for Formulation

Phase2.3.5 (b) Contributed Costs for Formulation Phase2.3.5 (c) Total Cost for Formulation Phase2.3.6 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type with Full-Cost

Accounting for NASA Institutions2.3.6 (b) Total Cost with Full-Cost Accounting for NASA

Institutions



well as contractor labor. Institutions consideredcontractors are SU-HEPL, SU-SLAC, UCSC,SSU, and all foreign institutions. Labor rates andoverheads are shown in Section 2.7. “Institu-tional Bases of Estimates.”Material and Equipment, and Other Directs.This includes costs for all purchased materialand equipment. Also included are costs for traveland other purchased components or equipment.Costs have been estimated extrapolating fromactual costs from past experience, catalog costs,and quotes. When these were unavailable, engi-neering estimates from past work were used.Subcontracts. All subcontracts to companies aretotaled by subsystem. This includes all subcon-tracts for work on-site at a team institution, or toprovide engineering or other types of service.Subcontracts also include any consulting ser-vices. Key subcontracts and consulting contractsfor the Formulation Phase are delineated in Sec-tion 2.3.3.5, below.

Table 2.3.5(b) lists contributing institutions,showing the amount and phasing of the contribu-tion. For all foreign institutions, these contribu-tions are in in-kind equipment and sub-assemblydelivery. For the SU-SLAC contribution, fundingis provided by the DOE. All other domestic con-tributions are in the form of salaries for full timefaculty or staff involved with the LAT instrumentat the institution.

For the Formulation Phase, funding fromother contributors is $26.51M.

2.3.3.3 Full-Cost Accounting for NASA Insti-tutionsTabulated costs using full-cost accounting forNASA institutions follow in Table 2.3.6. All con-tributions from non-NASA sources are identical,and are not repeated. Total costs for all sourcesare shown at the bottom of the table, and reflectboth the full-cost accounted NASA costs, and thecontributed costs.2.3.3.4 Formulation Phase Cost Tables

The Formulation Phase Cost Tables followon the next pages.



Table 2.3.5 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type for Formulation Phase (FY 99 K$ and RY K$)Contract Costs to NASA FY99 K$ RY K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2000 FY 2001 Total FY 2000 FY 2001 TotalTotal Contract Cost $3,452 $3,596 $7,048 $3,594 $3,891 $7,485Labor $2,457 $2,956 $5,413 $2,558 $3,198 $5,756

4.1.1 Instrument Management $49 $93 $143 $51 $101 $1524.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $294 $412 $706 $306 $446 $7524.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $1,039 $923 $1,961 $1,081 $999 $2,0804.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $388 $519 $907 $404 $561 $9654.1.7 Data Acquisition System $650 $882 $1,532 $677 $955 $1,6314.1.8 Grid $0 $8 $8 $0 $9 $94.1.9 Integration and Testing $4 $37 $41 $4 $40 $444.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $17 $13 $30 $18 $14 $324.1.12 Education & Outreach $17 $68 $85 $17 $74 $91

Mat’l & Equip, Other Directs $806 $640 $1,446 $839 $693 $1,5314.1.1 Instrument Management $12 $20 $32 $12 $22 $354.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $69 $60 $129 $72 $65 $1374.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $136 $177 $314 $142 $192 $3344.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $116 $105 $221 $121 $113 $2344.1.7 Data Acquisition System $401 $218 $618 $417 $235 $6534.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $46 $32 $78 $48 $35 $834.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $7 $12 $19 $8 $13 $214.1.12 Education & Outreach $18 $16 $34 $18 $17 $36

Subcontracts $25 $0 $25 $26 $0 $264.1.1 Instrument Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $25 $0 $25 $26 $0 $264.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.7 Data Acquisition System $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.12 Education & Outreach $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Reserves $164 $0 $164 $171 $0 $1714.1.1 Instrument Management $3 $0 $3 $3 $0 $34.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $18 $0 $18 $19 $0 $194.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $60 $0 $60 $62 $0 $624.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $25 $0 $25 $26 $0 $264.1.7 Data Acquisition System $53 $0 $53 $55 $0 $554.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $2 $0 $2 $3 $0 $34.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $1 $0 $1 $1 $0 $14.1.12 Education & Outreach $2 $0 $2 $2 $0 $2



Table 2.3.5 (b) Contributed Costs for Formulation Phase (FY 99 K$ and RY K)$Contributions FY99 K$ RY K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2000 FY 2001 Total FY 2000 FY 2001 TotalTotal Contributions $8,156 $18,360 $26,516 $8,490 $19,865 $28,356SU-SLAC $3,671 $7,348 $11,019 $3,822 $7,950 $11,772

4.1.1 Instrument Management $449 $1,079 $1,528 $467 $1,167 $1,6354.1.2 Systems Engineering $524 $1,294 $1,817 $545 $1,400 $1,9454.1.3 Science $65 $135 $200 $67 $147 $2144.1.4 Tracker $1,822 $2,466 $4,289 $1,897 $2,669 $4,5664.1.7 Data Acquisition System $253 $530 $783 $264 $573 $8374.1.8 Grid $251 $771 $1,022 $261 $834 $1,0954.1.9 Integration and Testing $41 $377 $418 $43 $408 $4514.1.10 Performance Assurance $135 $629 $765 $141 $681 $8224.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $131 $66 $197 $136 $72 $208

SU-Cost Share $39 $78 $116 $40 $84 $1244.1.1 Instrument Management $39 $78 $116 $40 $84 $124

UCSC $233 $467 $700 $243 $505 $7484.1.3 Science $132 $263 $395 $137 $285 $4224.1.4 Tracker $102 $204 $305 $106 $220 $326

CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $2,470 $3,760 $6,230 $2,571 $4,068 $6,6404.1.5 Calorimeter $2,470 $3,760 $6,230 $2,571 $4,068 $6,640

INFN/ASI $570 $3,288 $3,858 $593 $3,558 $4,1514.1.4 Tracker $570 $3,288 $3,858 $593 $3,558 $4,151

JGC $740 $1,655 $2,395 $770 $1,790 $2,5614.1.4 Tracker $740 $1,655 $2,395 $770 $1,790 $2,561

Sweden $400 $1,700 $2,100 $416 $1,839 $2,2564.1.5 Calorimeter $400 $1,700 $2,100 $416 $1,839 $2,256

UW $32 $65 $97 $34 $70 $1044.1.3 Science $32 $65 $97 $34 $70 $104

Table 2.3.5(c) Total Cost for Formulation Phase (FY 99 K$ and RY K$)Total Cost for Time Phase FY99 K$ RY K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2000 FY 2001 Total FY 2000 FY 2001 TotalTotal Cost for Time Phase $11,608 $21,956 $33,564 $12,084 $23,756 $35,840



Table 2.3.6 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type with Full-Cost Accounting for NASA Institutions FY 99 K$ and RY K$

Contract Costs to NASA FY99 K$ RY K$WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2000 FY 2001 Total FY 2000 FY 2001 Total

Total Contract Cost $3,918 $4,471 $8,389 $4,079 $4,837 $8,916Labor $2,890 $3,814 $6,705 $3,009 $4,127 $7,136

4.1.1 Instrument Management $49 $93 $143 $51 $101 $1524.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $427 $669 $1,096 $444 $724 $1,1684.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $1,039 $923 $1,961 $1,081 $999 $2,0804.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $677 $1,075 $1,751 $704 $1,163 $1,8674.1.7 Data Acquisition System $650 $882 $1,532 $677 $955 $1,6314.1.8 Grid $0 $30 $30 $0 $33 $334.1.9 Integration and Testing $16 $60 $76 $16 $65 $824.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $17 $13 $30 $18 $14 $324.1.12 Education & Outreach $17 $68 $85 $17 $74 $91

Mat’l & Equip, Other Directs $817 $656 $1,473 $850 $710 $1,5604.1.1 Instrument Management $12 $20 $32 $12 $22 $354.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $80 $71 $151 $84 $77 $1614.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $136 $177 $314 $142 $192 $3344.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $116 $105 $221 $121 $113 $2344.1.7 Data Acquisition System $401 $218 $618 $417 $235 $6534.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $46 $37 $83 $48 $40 $884.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $7 $12 $19 $8 $13 $214.1.12 Education & Outreach $18 $16 $34 $18 $17 $36

Subcontracts $25 $0 $25 $26 $0 $264.1.1 Instrument Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $25 $0 $25 $26 $0 $264.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.7 Data Acquisition System $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.12 Education & Outreach $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Reserves $187 $0 $187 $194 $0 $1944.1.1 Instrument Management $3 $0 $3 $3 $0 $34.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $25 $0 $25 $26 $0 $264.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $60 $0 $60 $62 $0 $624.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $40 $0 $40 $41 $0 $414.1.7 Data Acquisition System $53 $0 $53 $55 $0 $554.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $3 $0 $3 $3 $0 $34.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $1 $0 $1 $1 $0 $14.1.12 Education & Outreach $2 $0 $2 $2 $0 $2

Table 2.3.6 (b) Total Cost with Full-Cost Accounting for NASA Institutions FY 99 K$ and RY K$Total Cost for Time Phase FY99 K$ RY K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2000 FY 2001 Total FY 2000 FY 2001 TotalTotal Cost for Time Phase $12,074 $22,831 $34,905 $12,569 $24,703 $37,272



2.3.3.5 Key Cost ElementsKey cost elements for the Formulation Phase areshown in Tables 2.3.7, 2.3.8, and 2.3.9. Note thatall costs are in FY99 dollars, and are for thecomplete instrument, regardless of fundingsource.

Travel costs are summarized in Table 2.3.7,and include all instrument-related travel for thedomestic team institutions in the project. Foreignteam member travel is budgeted by the foreignteam institutions, and not carried or shown in thebudgets presented here.

Computer costs include budgets for all com-puter hardware and software for domestic teaminstitutions. This covers all standard computersneeded for the project, including office and labcomputers, and standard and specialized soft-

ware for the computers. However, this does notinclude any specialized computing or electronicequipment needed to perform specific produc-tion or testing functions, or that is included aspart of equipment which performs these func-tions. For example, the computer built into awire-bonding machine for the silicon Tracker isnot included in this summary. All such special-ized computers have been budgeted as equip-ment, and their costs are rolled up in the“materials and equipment” cost type shown inSection 2.3.3.2.

Key subcontracts include all subcontractsand consulting to institutions or companies out-side of the immediate team institutions shown inthe budgets in Section 2.3.3.2.



(*) Travel for Management and Systems Engineering included under Management budget.

(**) Travel for sub-orbital flight support included under I&T budget.

Table 2.3.7 Travel Costs for Formulation Phase (FY 99$)

Travel BudgetInstrument Management* $290,343Systems Engineering* $0Science $67,448Tracker $111,480Calorimeter $68,850Anticoindence Detector $46,000Data Acquisition System $62,145Grid $21,148Integration and Testing** $28,408Performance Assurance $60,500Instrument Operations Center $21,448Education & Outreach $11,784Total $789,554

(*) All computers for Management and Systems Engineering budgeted under Management

Table 2.3.8 Computer Costs for Formulation Phase (FY 99$)

Computers BudgetInstrument Management* $11,053Systems Engineering* $0Science $20,000Tracker $6,900Calorimeter $50,000Anticoindence Detector $12,000Data Acquisition System $10,000Grid $0Integration and Testing $2,040Performance Assurance $4,500Instrument Operations Center $22,000Education & Outreach $20,499Total $158,992

Table 2.3.9 Sub-Contract and Consulting Costs for Formulation Phase (FY 99$)Key Sub-Contracts Budget Description

Management $0System EngineeringInstrument structural and thermal analysis $658,000 Structural and dynamic response analysis; on-orbit thermal analysis,

performed by Lockheed-Martin Advanced Technology CenterReliability engineering $80,000 System-level reliability engineering, and working with sub-system reli-

ability engineersStructural analysis $380,000 Structural analysis to support design integration function, performed

by Hytec, Inc.

Science $0TrackerTracker tower structural design, analysis, and

testing$410,000 Hytec, Inc. will provide engineering and testing support for tower struc-

tural and thermal designTray mechanical design $347,000 Hytec, Inc. will engineer, fabricate, and test the carbon-fiber tray struc-

tural members

Calorimeter $0Anticoindence Detector $0Data Acquisition System $0GridDesign and analysis of Grid engineering model $898,313 Detailed design, and thermal and structural analysis of the Grid will be

sub-contracted to Lockheed-Martin Advanced Technology CenterIntegration and Test $0Performance and Safety AssuranceISO 9000 quality audit $15,000 Perform audit of SLAC ISO 9000 plans and proceduresISO 9000 qualification planning $20,000 Aid SLAC Q.A. personnel in preparing for ISO 9000 qualificationContamination control auditing service $40,000 Audit instrument project’s contamination control procedures and imple-

mentationInstrument Operations Center $0Education and Public OutreachWeb curriculum development $100,000 To be contracted to VideoDiscoveryPrinted curriculum development $150,000 To be contracted TOPS Learning SystemsAssessment $120,000 Independent assessment of curriculum. To be contracted to WestEd

Total Sub-Contracts $3,253,313



2.4 IMPLEMENTATION PHASE COST ESTIMATE

2.4.1 Workforce Staffing PlanA summary of staffing for the ImplementationPhase effort is shown in Table 2.4.1. Followingthis is a detailed breakdown of staff, by sub-system, showing key personnel for the instru-ment project and for each subsystem. Thesetables include all personnel working directly onthe instrument, at all of the institutions involved.

The single significant trend in this staffing

profile is that it peaks in FY 2003. This corre-sponds with the peak spending year for non-NASA funds. Following I-CDR in July 2002, weplan to move aggressively in the construction ofall subsystem flight components. This is espe-cially true for the Tracker and parts of the DAQ,which receive significant DOE funds.

Table 2.4.1 Staffing Summary for Implementation Phase (staff-yr)WBS LaborTotal FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total

4.1.1 Management 9.85 9.86 9.86 7.18 36.744.1.2 System Engineering 8.68 7.73 7.41 2.00 25.814.1.3 Science Support 14.10 14.30 13.33 12.31 54.044.1.4 Tracker 25.55 32.98 24.67 16.36 99.564.1.5 Calorimeter 46.11 46.74 33.03 28.13 154.024.1.6 Anticoindence Detector 14.01 14.34 11.29 3.83 43.464.1.7 Data Acquisition System 19.90 19.72 15.15 5.50 60.264.1.8 Grid 5.11 4.14 2.37 0.29 11.914.1.9 Integration and Test 3.83 6.09 4.98 2.54 17.434.1.10 Perf., Safety Assurance 3.35 3.36 3.33 0.83 10.874.1.11 Instrument Operations Center 1.32 3.44 6.72 5.64 17.124.1.12 Education, Public Outreach 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 4.56

Total Staffing 152.94 163.83 133.27 85.74 535.79



Table 2.4.2 Staffing Breakdown for Implementation Phase(staff-yr)WBS Labor Total FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total

4.1.1 Management 9.85 9.86 9.86 7.18 36.74Prinicpal Investigator 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 2.50Instrument Technical Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.00Instrument Project Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00Management Staff 5.47 5.48 5.48 3.50 19.93Science and Engineering Staff 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.56 8.31Technicians and Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.1.2 System Engineering 8.68 7.73 7.41 2.00 25.81Instrument System Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00Management Staff 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 3.25Science and Engineering Staff 6.18 5.23 5.16 0.75 17.31Technicians and Others 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.00 1.25

4.1.3 Science Support 14.10 14.30 13.33 12.31 54.04Instrument Scientist 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 3.40Management Staff 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.60Science and Engineering Staff 9.60 9.80 8.58 7.56 35.54Technicians and Others 3.30 3.30 3.45 3.45 13.50

4.1.4 Tracker 25.55 32.98 24.67 16.36 99.56Tkr Subsystem Manager 1.23 1.23 1.24 1.01 4.71Tkr Subsystem Engineer 1.03 1.03 1.04 0.34 3.44Management Staff 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 15.00Science and Engineering Staff 17.71 16.84 16.62 11.73 62.90Technicians and Others 1.58 9.88 1.78 0.27 13.50

4.1.5 Calorimeter 46.11 46.74 33.03 28.13 154.02Cal Subsystem Manager 0.54 0.73 0.31 0.25 1.83Cal Subsystem Engineer 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.19 2.79Management Staff 5.44 4.44 3.94 1.84 15.66Science and Engineering Staff 25.51 23.91 18.32 19.10 86.84Technicians and Others 13.62 16.67 9.87 6.75 46.91

4.1.6 Anticoindence Detector 14.01 14.34 11.29 3.83 43.46ACD Subsystem Manager 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.80Management Staff 1.71 1.74 1.44 0.23 5.11Science & Engineering Staff 8.15 7.75 6.00 2.40 24.30Technicians & Others 3.95 4.65 3.65 1.00 13.25

4.1.7 Data Acquisition System 19.90 19.72 15.15 5.50 60.26DAQ Subsystem Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 3.44Management Staff 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.60 5.70Science and Engineering Staff 13.55 13.32 8.75 4.46 40.07Technicians and Others 3.65 3.70 3.70 0.00 11.05

4.1.8 Grid 5.11 4.14 2.37 0.29 11.91Grid Subsystem Manager 0.68 0.44 0.43 0.03 1.58Management Staff 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.41Science and Engineering Staff 3.73 2.96 1.10 0.24 8.03Technicians and Others 0.57 0.60 0.70 0.02 1.88

4.1.9 Integration and Test 3.83 6.09 4.98 2.54 17.43Integration and Test Manager 1.04 1.04 1.05 0.82 3.96Management Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Science and Engineering Staff 2.42 3.38 1.32 0.73 7.86Technicians and Others 0.36 1.67 2.61 0.98 5.62

4.1.10 Perf., Safety Assurance 3.35 3.36 3.33 0.83 10.87Performance Assurance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 3.50Management Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Science and Engineering Staff 2.33 2.33 2.33 0.33 7.33Technicians and Others 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04

4.1.11 Instrument Operations Center 1.32 3.44 6.72 5.64 17.12IOC Manager 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.78 3.33Management Staff 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.66Science and Engineering Staff 0.60 2.27 4.55 3.71 11.13Technicians and Others 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

4.1.12 Education, Public Outreach 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 4.56EPO Coordinator 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.80Management Staff 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.00Science and Engineering Staff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Technicians and Others 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 1.76Total Staffing 152.94 163.83 133.27 85.74 535.79



2.4.2 Implementation Phase Time-Phased Cost SummaryCosts for the Implementation Phase are shown inthe sections to follow. To simplify the layout,and facilitate direct comparison of tables, allpage-length tables have been collected inSection 2.4.2.4. These full-page tables are:

2.4.2.1 Total Implementation Phase CostTable 2.4.4 summarizes costs for the instrumentby WBS element. These are total costs for theelement, independent of funding source, and arerolled up from more detailed budget breakdownsfor each subsystem. A summary and discussionof the total instrument cost is provided in section2.6. 2.4.2.2 Cost Breakdown by Cost TypeTables 2.4.5(a) shows NASA costs by cost type,

Table 2.4.5(b) shows contributed costs, andTable 2.4.5 (c) shows total cost. For NASA costs,the table shows costs categorized by Labor (bothCivil Servant and Contractor), Material andEquipment, Sub-Contracts, and Reserves foreach subsystem receiving NASA funds. Tables2.4.6 (a)-(c) give the same information in RY$.2.4.2.3 Full-Cost Accounting for NASA Insti-tutions

Tables 2.4.7 and 2.4.8 show costs using full-cost accounting for NASA institutions in FY99$and RY$ respectively. All contributions fromnon-NASA sources are identical to Tables2.4.5(b) and 2.4.6(b), and are not repeated. Totalcosts for all sources are shown in Tables 2.4.7(b)and 2.4.8(b),including both the full-costaccounted NASA costs, and the contributedcosts.2.4.2.4 Implementation Phase Cost Tables

The Implementation Phase Cost Tables arepresented on the following pages.

Table 2.4.3 List of Implementation Phase

Cost TablesTable Title2.4.5 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type for Implementation

Phase (FY99 K$)2.4.5 (b) Contributed Costs for Implementation Phase

(FY99 K$)2.4.5 (c) Total Cost for Implementation Phase (FY99 K$)2.4.6 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type for Implementation

Phase (RY K$)2.4.6 (b) Contributed Costs for Implementation Phase (RY

K$)2.4.6 (c) Total Cost for Implementation Phase (RY K$)2.4.7 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type with Full-Cost

Accounting for NASA Institutions (FY99 K$)2.4.7 (b) Total Cost with Full-Cost Accounting for NASA

Institutions (FY99 K$)2.4.8 (a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type with Full-Cost

Accounting for NASA Institutions (RY K$)2.4.8 (b) Total Cost with Full-Cost Accounting for NASA

Institutions (RY K$)

Table 2.4.4 Implementation Phase Costs by WBS Element(FY99 K$)WBS Subsystem FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Total4.1 Instrument Total $34,265 $33,318 $26,600 $12,846 $107,0294.1.1 Instrument Management $1,401 $1,469 $1,701 $1,191 $5,7614.1.2 Systems Engineering $1,499 $1,271 $1,444 $345 $4,5594.1.3 Science $1,656 $1,796 $1,888 $1,641 $6,9814.1.4 Tracker $8,755 $6,338 $3,240 $1,989 $20,3214.1.5 Calorimeter $10,105 $7,998 $4,990 $3,481 $26,5744.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $3,077 $3,268 $2,272 $465 $9,0824.1.7 Data Acquisition System $4,711 $6,564 $5,547 $1,455 $18,2764.1.8 Grid $1,240 $1,276 $617 $113 $3,2444.1.9 Integration and Testing $639 $1,712 $2,137 $511 $4,9994.1.10 Performance Assurance $622 $616 $642 $157 $2,0374.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $299 $691 $1,471 $1,152 $3,6144.1.12 Education & Outreach $263 $319 $651 $347 $1,580



Table 2.4.5(a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type for Implementation Phase (FY 99 K$)Contract Costs to NASA FY99 K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 TotalTotal Contract Cost $13,789 $17,372 $15,573 $5,187 $51,922Labor $7,271 $8,294 $6,382 $2,679 $24,627

4.1.1 Instrument Management $186 $188 $188 $90 $6534.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $903 $926 $787 $668 $3,2844.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $1,720 $2,407 $1,285 $451 $5,8624.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $1,038 $1,062 $899 $226 $3,2254.1.7 Data Acquisition System $2,225 $2,235 $1,794 $555 $6,8094.1.8 Grid $959 $769 $393 $75 $2,1964.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $368 $376 $129 $8734.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $141 $242 $560 $386 $1,3304.1.12 Education & Outreach $99 $99 $99 $99 $395

Mat’l & Equip, Other Directs $4,472 $5,207 $2,895 $739 $13,3144.1.1 Instrument Management $24 $22 $22 $40 $1074.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $131 $136 $140 $105 $5124.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $1,240 $536 $215 $70 $2,0614.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $1,416 $1,257 $476 $83 $3,2334.1.7 Data Acquisition System $1,400 $2,629 $1,666 $202 $5,8984.1.8 Grid $122 $258 $18 $0 $3974.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $243 $99 $32 $3744.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $58 $57 $140 $114 $3694.1.12 Education & Outreach $81 $68 $121 $92 $362

Subcontracts $279 $475 $1,105 $40 $1,8984.1.1 Instrument Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $229 $310 $140 $0 $6784.1.7 Data Acquisition System $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $75 $750 $0 $8254.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.12 Education & Outreach $50 $90 $215 $40 $395

Reserves $1,767 $3,396 $5,191 $1,729 $12,0844.1.1 Instrument Management $31 $51 $105 $65 $2524.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $152 $258 $463 $387 $1,2604.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $435 $715 $750 $260 $2,1614.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $394 $639 $757 $155 $1,9454.1.7 Data Acquisition System $533 $1,182 $1,730 $379 $3,8244.1.8 Grid $159 $249 $206 $38 $6514.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $167 $612 $81 $8604.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $29 $73 $350 $250 $7024.1.12 Education & Outreach $34 $62 $217 $116 $429



Table 2.4.5 (b) Contributed Costs for Implementation Phase (FY 99 K$)Contributions FY99 K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 TotalTotal Contributions $20,476 $15,945 $11,027 $7,659 $55,107SU-SLAC $6,692 $8,607 $5,826 $3,244 $24,370

4.1.1 Instrument Management $1,082 $1,131 $1,308 $918 $4,4394.1.2 Systems Engineering $1,499 $1,271 $1,444 $345 $4,5594.1.3 Science $141 $147 $171 $153 $6124.1.4 Tracker $2,087 $3,745 $1,185 $680 $7,6984.1.7 Data Acquisition System $553 $518 $356 $319 $1,7464.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $639 $858 $300 $269 $2,0664.1.10 Performance Assurance $622 $616 $642 $157 $2,0374.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $70 $320 $420 $403 $1,213

SU-Cost Share $78 $78 $78 $78 $3114.1.1 Instrument Management $78 $78 $78 $78 $311

UCSC $468 $468 $468 $432 $1,8354.1.3 Science $263 $263 $263 $263 $1,0534.1.4 Tracker $204 $204 $205 $168 $782

CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $4,810 $3,440 $1,890 $1,500 $11,6404.1.5 Calorimeter $4,810 $3,440 $1,890 $1,500 $11,640

INFN/ASI $3,548 $1,994 $1,570 $1,140 $8,2524.1.4 Tracker $3,548 $1,994 $1,570 $1,140 $8,252

JGC $2,916 $394 $280 $0 $3,5904.1.4 Tracker $2,916 $394 $280 $0 $3,590

Sweden $1,900 $900 $850 $1,200 $4,8504.1.5 Calorimeter $1,900 $900 $850 $1,200 $4,850

UW $65 $65 $65 $65 $2604.1.3 Science $65 $65 $65 $65 $260

Table 2.4.5(c) Total Cost for Implementation Phase (FY99 K$)Total Cost for Time Phase FY99 K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 TotalTotal Cost for Time Phase $34,265 $33,318 $26,600 $12,846 $107,029



Table 2.4.6(a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type for Implementation Phase(RY K$)Contract Costs to NASA RY k$


4.1.1 Instrument Management $210 $220 $228 $113 $7714.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $1,015 $1,082 $954 $842 $3,8934.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $1,933 $2,811 $1,559 $568 $6,8714.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $1,167 $1,240 $1,090 $285 $3,7824.1.7 Data Acquisition System $2,501 $2,610 $2,177 $699 $7,9874.1.8 Grid $1,077 $898 $477 $95 $2,5474.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $430 $456 $162 $1,0494.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $159 $282 $680 $487 $1,6084.1.12 Education & Outreach $111 $115 $120 $124 $470



Reserves $1,986 $3,967 $6,297 $2,179 $14,4294.1.1 Instrument Management $35 $60 $127 $82 $3044.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $171 $301 $562 $487 $1,5214.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $489 $835 $910 $328 $2,5624.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $443 $746 $919 $195 $2,3034.1.7 Data Acquisition System $599 $1,381 $2,099 $477 $4,5554.1.8 Grid $179 $291 $249 $47 $7664.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $195 $743 $102 $1,0394.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $33 $85 $425 $315 $8584.1.12 Education & Outreach $38 $73 $263 $146 $520



Table 2.4.6(b) Contributed Costs for Implementation Phase(RY K$)Contributions RY K$

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 TotalTotal Contributions $23,015 $18,624 $13,376 $9,650 $64,665SU-SLAC $7,522 $10,053 $7,067 $4,088 $28,730

4.1.1 Instrument Management $1,216 $1,321 $1,587 $1,156 $5,2804.1.2 Systems Engineering $1,685 $1,485 $1,751 $435 $5,3564.1.3 Science $159 $172 $207 $193 $7314.1.4 Tracker $2,346 $4,375 $1,437 $857 $9,0154.1.7 Data Acquisition System $622 $605 $432 $402 $2,0604.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $718 $1,003 $364 $339 $2,4244.1.10 Performance Assurance $699 $720 $779 $198 $2,3954.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $79 $373 $509 $507 $1,469

SU-Cost Share $87 $91 $94 $98 $3704.1.1 Instrument Management $87 $91 $94 $98 $370

UCSC $526 $546 $568 $544 $2,1844.1.3 Science $296 $307 $319 $332 $1,2544.1.4 Tracker $230 $239 $249 $212 $929

CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $5,406 $4,018 $2,293 $1,890 $13,6074.1.5 Calorimeter $5,406 $4,018 $2,293 $1,890 $13,607

INFN/ASI $3,988 $2,330 $1,904 $1,436 $9,6584.1.4 Tracker $3,988 $2,330 $1,904 $1,436 $9,658

JGC $3,278 $460 $340 $0 $4,0774.1.4 Tracker $3,278 $460 $340 $0 $4,077

Sweden $2,136 $1,051 $1,031 $1,512 $5,7304.1.5 Calorimeter $2,136 $1,051 $1,031 $1,512 $5,730

UW $73 $76 $79 $82 $3094.1.3 Science $73 $76 $79 $82 $309

Table 2.4.6(c) Total Costs for Implementation Phase(RY K$)Total Cost for Time Phase RY K$




Table 2.4.7(a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type, with Full-Cost Accounting for Implementation Phase (FY99 K$)

Contract Costs to NASA FY99 K$WBS Instrument Subsystem FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Total

Total Contract Cost $14,861 $18,559 $16,922 $6,056 $56,397Labor $8,195 $9,238 $7,339 $3,316 $28,088

4.1.1 Instrument Management $186 $188 $188 $90 $6534.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $1,150 $1,172 $1,044 $914 $4,2804.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $1,720 $2,407 $1,285 $451 $5,8624.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $1,693 $1,726 $1,359 $410 $5,1874.1.7 Data Acquisition System $2,225 $2,235 $1,794 $555 $6,8094.1.8 Grid $981 $802 $427 $75 $2,2844.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $368 $583 $336 $1,2874.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $141 $242 $560 $386 $1,3304.1.12 Education & Outreach $99 $99 $99 $99 $395



Reserves $1,905 $3,628 $5,572 $1,950 $13,0544.1.1 Instrument Management $31 $51 $105 $65 $2524.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $190 $321 $597 $515 $1,6234.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $435 $715 $750 $260 $2,1614.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $491 $800 $987 $247 $2,5254.1.7 Data Acquisition System $533 $1,182 $1,730 $379 $3,8244.1.8 Grid $162 $257 $222 $38 $6794.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $167 $612 $81 $8604.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $29 $73 $350 $250 $7024.1.12 Education & Outreach $34 $62 $217 $116 $429

Table 2.4.7(b) Total Costs, with Full-Cost Accounting for Implementation Phase (FY99 K$)Total Cost for Time Phase FY99 K$




Table 2.4.8(a) Cost Breakdown by Cost Type, with Full-Cost Accounting for Implementation Phase (RY K$)Contract Costs to NASA RY K$


4.1.1 Instrument Management $210 $220 $228 $113 $7714.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $1,292 $1,369 $1,266 $1,152 $5,0804.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $1,933 $2,811 $1,559 $568 $6,8714.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $1,903 $2,015 $1,648 $516 $6,0834.1.7 Data Acquisition System $2,501 $2,610 $2,177 $699 $7,9874.1.8 Grid $1,103 $936 $518 $95 $2,6514.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $430 $707 $423 $1,5614.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $159 $282 $680 $487 $1,6084.1.12 Education & Outreach $111 $115 $120 $124 $470



Reserves $2,141 $4,238 $6,758 $2,456 $15,5934.1.1 Instrument Management $35 $60 $127 $82 $3044.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $213 $375 $724 $649 $1,9624.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $489 $835 $910 $328 $2,5624.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $551 $935 $1,198 $311 $2,9944.1.7 Data Acquisition System $599 $1,381 $2,099 $477 $4,5554.1.8 Grid $182 $301 $269 $47 $8004.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $195 $743 $102 $1,0394.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $33 $85 $425 $315 $8584.1.12 Education & Outreach $38 $73 $263 $146 $520

Table 2.4.8(b) Total Cost, with Full-Cost Accounting for Implementation Phase (RY K$)Total Cost for Time Phase RY K$




2.5 OPERATIONS AND DATA ANAL-YSIS COST ESTIMATE

2.5.1 Operations Phase Time-Phased Cost Summary2.5.1.1 Total Operations Phase CostTable 2.5.1 summarizes costs for the instrumentby subsystem for the Operations and Data Anal-ysis Phase. Costs shown are for all domesticteam institutions. Note that scientific data anal-ysis has been budgeted under subsystem WBSelements, along with subsystem support for theinstrument. For instance, funding shown for theCalorimeter covers not just the Calorimeter sub-system operations support, but also data analy-sis of Calorimeter and instrument data byscientists affiliated with the Calorimeter sub-system.

Foreign institution funding is not shown forthis phase. However, all foreign institutions willsupport their co-Investigators during this phase.

2.5.1.2 Cost BreakdownsTables 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 show cost breakdownsfor the Operations Phase in FY99$ and RY$respectively. Level-of-effort budgeting has pro-duced the budgets shown. Detailed costing bycost elements will be part of the FormulationPhase effort , so divisions showing labor, mate-rials and equipment, and subcontracts have yetto be determined. As with the Formulation andImplementation Phases, a significant contribu-tion in operations funds from the DOE willensure that the Instrument Operations Center iswell-staffed, and that the instrument is well-supported. 2.5.1.3 Full Cost Accounting for NASA In-stitutions

Tables 2.5.4 and 2.5.5 show cost break-downs for the Operations Phase, with NASAfull-cost accounting, in FY99$ and RY$,respectively,

Table 2.5.1 Total Operations Phase Costs by WBS Element (FY99 K$)WBS Subsystem FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total4.1 Instrument Total $10,606 $8,367 $7,651 $7,412 $7,256 $41,2914.1.1 Instrument Management $344 $317 $292 $276 $272 $1,5004.1.2 Systems Engineering $130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $6504.1.3 Science $2,424 $2,469 $2,432 $2,364 $2,351 $12,0404.1.4 Tracker $378 $378 $338 $338 $338 $1,7704.1.5 Calorimeter $744 $600 $500 $420 $345 $2,6094.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $175 $145 $91 $69 $61 $5424.1.7 Data Acquisition System $153 $152 $123 $118 $100 $6464.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $50 $50 $40 $40 $40 $2204.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $6,159 $4,075 $3,660 $3,616 $3,579 $21,0894.1.12 Education & Outreach $50 $50 $45 $40 $40 $225



Table 2.5.2 Operations Phase Costs by Institution (FY99 K$)WBS Subsystem FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total

NASA Funds4.1.1 Instrument Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $596 $541 $404 $336 $323 $2,2004.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $744 $600 $500 $420 $345 $2,6094.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $175 $145 $91 $69 $61 $5424.1.7 Data Acquisition System $28 $27 $23 $18 $0 $964.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $259 $175 $160 $116 $79 $7894.1.12 Education & Outreach $50 $50 $45 $40 $40 $225

Total NASA Contract Costs $1,852 $1,539 $1,223 $999 $848 $6,461

Total Contributions $8,614 $6,714 $6,314 $6,314 $6,314 $34,268SU-SLAC $8,040 $6,140 $5,740 $5,740 $5,740 $31,400

4.1.1 Instrument Management $125 $125 $100 $100 $100 $5504.1.2 Systems Engineering $130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $6504.1.3 Science $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $8,2004.1.4 Tracker $210 $210 $170 $170 $170 $9304.1.7 Data Acquisition System $125 $125 $100 $100 $100 $5504.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $50 $50 $40 $40 $40 $2204.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $5,900 $3,900 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $20,300


UCSC $431 $431 $431 $431 $431 $2,1554.1.3 Science $263 $263 $263 $263 $263 $1,3154.1.4 Tracker $168 $168 $168 $168 $168 $840

UW $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $3254.1.3 Science $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $325

Total Cost for Time Phase $10,465 $8,252 $7,537 $7,313 $7,162 $40,729



Table 2.5.3 Operations Phase Costs by Institution (RY K$)WBS Subsystem FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total

NASA Funds4.1.1 Instrument Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $780 $736 $571 $494 $493 $3,0734.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $974 $816 $707 $617 $526 $3,6404.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $230 $197 $129 $101 $94 $7504.1.7 Data Acquisition System $36 $37 $33 $27 $0 $1334.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $339 $238 $227 $171 $120 $1,0954.1.12 Education & Outreach $65 $68 $64 $59 $61 $317Total NASA Contract Costs $2,424 $2,093 $1,729 $1,467 $1,294 $9,007


4.1.1 Instrument Management $164 $170 $141 $147 $153 $7744.1.2 Systems Engineering $170 $177 $184 $191 $198 $9204.1.3 Science $1,964 $2,176 $2,403 $2,496 $2,594 $11,6324.1.4 Tracker $275 $286 $240 $250 $259 $1,3104.1.7 Data Acquisition System $164 $170 $141 $147 $153 $7744.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4.1.10 Performance Assurance $65 $68 $57 $59 $61 $3104.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $7,724 $5,305 $4,946 $5,139 $5,340 $28,454


UCSC $564 $586 $609 $633 $658 $3,0504.1.3 Science $344 $358 $372 $386 $401 $1,8614.1.4 Tracker $220 $229 $237 $247 $256 $1,189

UW $85 $88 $92 $95 $99 $4604.1.3 Science $85 $88 $92 $95 $99 $460




Table 2.5.4 Operations Phase Costs, with Full-Cost Accounting by Institution (FY99 K$)WBS Subsystem FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total

NASA Funds4.1.1 Instrument Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $865 $798 $637 $557 $544 $3,4014.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $744 $600 $500 $420 $345 $2,6094.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $303 $225 $160 $126 $107 $9204.1.7 Data Acquisition System $28 $27 $23 $18 $0 $964.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $259 $175 $160 $116 $79 $7894.1.12 Education & Outreach $50 $50 $45 $40 $40 $225

Total NASA Contract Costs $2,248 $1,876 $1,525 $1,277 $1,114 $8,040


4.1.1 Instrument Management $125 $125 $100 $100 $100 $5504.1.2 Systems Engineering $130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $6504.1.3 Science $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $8,2004.1.4 Tracker $210 $210 $170 $170 $170 $9304.1.7 Data Acquisition System $125 $125 $100 $100 $100 $5504.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $50 $50 $40 $40 $40 $2204.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $5,900 $3,900 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $20,300


UCSC $431 $431 $431 $431 $431 $2,1554.1.3 Science $263 $263 $263 $263 $263 $1,3154.1.4 Tracker $168 $168 $168 $168 $168 $840

UW $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $3254.1.3 Science $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $325




Table 2.5.5 Operations Phase Costs, with Full-Cost Accounting by Institution (RY K$)WBS Subsystem FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total

NASA Funds4.1.1 Instrument Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.2 Systems Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.3 Science $1,132 $1,086 $900 $818 $830 $4,7664.1.4 Tracker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.5 Calorimeter $974 $816 $707 $617 $526 $3,6404.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $396 $307 $226 $185 $163 $1,2764.1.7 Data Acquisition System $36 $37 $33 $27 $0 $1334.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $339 $238 $227 $171 $120 $1,0954.1.12 Education & Outreach $65 $68 $64 $59 $61 $317

Total NASA Contract Costs $2,943 $2,552 $2,155 $1,876 $1,700 $11,225


4.1.1 Instrument Management $164 $170 $141 $147 $153 $7744.1.2 Systems Engineering $170 $177 $184 $191 $198 $9204.1.3 Science $1,964 $2,176 $2,403 $2,496 $2,594 $11,6324.1.4 Tracker $275 $286 $240 $250 $259 $1,3104.1.7 Data Acquisition System $164 $170 $141 $147 $153 $7744.1.8 Grid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.9 Integration and Testing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $04.1.10 Performance Assurance $65 $68 $57 $59 $61 $3104.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $7,724 $5,305 $4,946 $5,139 $5,340 $28,454


UCSC $564 $586 $609 $633 $658 $3,0504.1.3 Science $344 $358 $372 $386 $401 $1,8614.1.4 Tracker $220 $229 $237 $247 $256 $1,189

UW $85 $88 $92 $95 $99 $4604.1.3 Science $85 $88 $92 $95 $99 $460




2.6 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

2.6.1 Total Cost Funding Profile2.6.1.1 Total Cost Funding Profile by Insti-tutionTotal instrument costs are shown in Table 2.6.1.This is divided by Phase, and by institution.Totals for NASA contract costs are shown at thetop of the table, for all institutions receivingNASA funds. All other contributions fromdomestic and foreign institutions are shown atthe bottom of the table, also divided by Phase.Table 2.6.2 is organized identically, but showsall costs in real year dollars.2.6.1.2 Full Cost Accounting for NASA In-stitutionsTable 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 show total costs for theproject, including full-cost accounting for NASAinstitutions, in FY99$ and RY$, respectively.2.6.1.3 Total Cost Funding AnalysisThe above tables reflect the strong involvementof the non-NASA team institutions. The supportof other funding agencies, both domestic andinternational, provide for over half of the totalfunding for the instrument, in all phases of theproject. Also significant to the success of theproject, the non-NASA contributions serve tomitigate the schedule risk introduced by thechallenging NASA profile.

Figure 2.6.1 shows the effect of these out-side contributions. The graph shows that thefunding ramps up much more quickly for thetotal project than for NASA funds, and that thepeak of the total funding profile occurs one yearearlier than the NASA profile. The early ramp-up of other funding sources will help us continueour aggressive development effort, and establisha strong Management and System Engineeringinfrastructure for the project.

The funding profile will ensure a quick tran-sition from I-PDR in August, 2001, to fabrica-tion and testing of the flight-configuredengineering model, prior to the I-CDR in August,2002. This profile allows the early ordering ofthe long-lead silicon detectors for the Trackersubsystem and the transition in FY 2003 fromthe I-CDR to flight production of all instrumentsubsystems.

Another feature shown in the total cost

tables is the continued support of the DOEthrough the Operations Phase. DOE and othercontributions exceed the NASA funding, allow-ing for adequate staffing of the IOC and timelydelivery of data products. Finally, during Opera-tions Phase, foreign Co-Investigators will besupported by their institutions. These contrib-uted costs are not shown here.2.6.1.4 Total Cost Tables2.6.2 Total Cost Funding Profile by WBS2.6.2.1 Funding Profile by WBSTable 2.6.5 shows total funding for the Formula-tion and Implementation Phases of the instru-ment project, divided by WBS subsystemelement, then further by institution. Costs shownare for all team institutions, and includereserves. As is evident in the other cost tables,NASA funds will be used only at four institu-tions: SU-HEPL, GSFC, NRL, and SSU. All otherinstitutions are fully funded from other sources.

Notable in Table 2.6.5 is that most of theInstrument Project Office (IPO), all of theTracker, and a significant portion of almost allother subsystems show strong involvement ofother team institutions. This serves three pur-poses. First, the strengths of the personnel andfacilities of the team institutions are being maxi-mally utilized in the project. Second, the work isbeing spread out among multiple institutions,reducing the schedule risk introduced by a singleunder-performing institution. Finally, both thefunding and other resources brought to theproject by team institutions can be used to miti-

Figure 2.6.1 Total Cost (FY99$)

40

30

20

10

02000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal Years2004 2005

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Non-NASA CostsNASA Costs

10-998509A98



gate potential funding problems with any giveninstitution.2.6.2.2 Funding Profile by Cost Type

The Funding Profile by Cost Type followsin Table 2.6.6.

Table 2.6.1 Summary of Total Cost by Phase and Institution (FY99 K$)Phase/Institution FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 TotalFormulation $3,452 $3,596 $7,048SU-HEPL $783 $933 $1,716GSFC $843 $1,004 $1,847NRL $1,791 $1,575 $3,365SSU $36 $84 $120Implementation $13,789 $17,372 $15,573 $5,187 $51,922SU-HEPL $4,761 $7,624 $7,659 $2,692 $22,736GSFC $3,666 $3,988 $2,966 $846 $11,466NRL $5,099 $5,441 $4,297 $1,302 $16,139SSU $263 $319 $651 $347 $1,580Operations $1,993 $1,653 $1,337 $1,098 $942 $7,023SU-HEPL $684 $573 $485 $395 $322 $2,459GSFC $515 $430 $307 $243 $235 $1,730NRL $744 $600 $500 $420 $345 $2,609SSU $50 $50 $45 $40 $40 $225Cost to NASA $3,452 $3,596 $13,789 $17,372 $15,573 $5,187 $1,993 $1,653 $1,337 $1,098 $942 $65,993

Formulation $8,156 $18,360 $26,516SU-SLAC $3,671 $7,348 $11,019SU-Cost Share $39 $78 $116UCSC $233 $467 $700CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $2,470 $3,760 $6,230INFN/ASI $570 $3,288 $3,858JGC $740 $1,655 $2,395Sweden $400 $1,700 $2,100UW $32 $65 $97Implementation $20,476 $15,945 $11,027 $7,659 $55,107SU-SLAC $6,692 $8,607 $5,826 $3,244 $24,370SU-Cost Share $78 $78 $78 $78 $311UCSC $468 $468 $468 $432 $1,835CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $4,810 $3,440 $1,890 $1,500 $11,640INFN/ASI $3,548 $1,994 $1,570 $1,140 $8,252JGC $2,916 $394 $280 $0 $3,590Sweden $1,900 $900 $850 $1,200 $4,850UW $65 $65 $65 $65 $260Operations $8,614 $6,714 $6,314 $6,314 $6,314 $34,268SU-SLAC $8,040 $6,140 $5,740 $5,740 $5,740 $31,400SU-Cost Share $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $388UCSC $431 $431 $431 $431 $431 $2,155CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0INFN/ASI $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0JGC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Sweden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0UW $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $325Contributed Costs $8,156 $18,360 $20,476 $15,945 $11,027 $7,659 $8,614 $6,714 $6,314 $6,314 $6,314 $115,891Grand Total Costs $11,608 $21,956 $34,266 $33,318 $26,600 $12,846 $10,606 $8,367 $7,651 $7,412 $7,256 $181,884



Table 2.6.2 Summary of Total Cost by Phase and Institution (RY K$)Phase/Institution FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 TotalFormulation $3,594 $3,891 $7,485SU-HEPL $815 $1,010 $1,825GSFC $877 $1,086 $1,963NRL $1,864 $1,704 $3,568SSU $38 $91 $129Implementation $15,499 $20,291 $18,890 $6,536 $61,216SU-HEPL $5,352 $8,905 $9,290 $3,392 $26,939GSFC $4,120 $4,658 $3,597 $1,066 $13,442NRL $5,731 $6,355 $5,213 $1,641 $18,940SSU $296 $373 $790 $437 $1,895Operations $2,609 $2,248 $1,890 $1,612 $1,437 $9,797SU-HEPL $895 $779 $686 $580 $491 $3,432GSFC $674 $585 $434 $357 $359 $2,408NRL $974 $816 $707 $617 $526 $3,640SSU $65 $68 $64 $59 $61 $317Cost to NASA $3,594 $3,891 $15,499 $20,291 $18,890 $6,536 $2,609 $2,248 $1,890 $1,612 $1,437 $78,497

Formulation $8,490 $19,865 $28,356SU-SLAC $3,822 $7,950 $11,772SU-Cost Share $40 $84 $124UCSC $243 $505 $748CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $2,571 $4,068 $6,640INFN/ASI $593 $3,558 $4,151JGC $770 $1,790 $2,561Sweden $416 $1,839 $2,256UW $34 $70 $104Implementation $23,015 $18,624 $13,376 $9,650 $64,665SU-SLAC $7,522 $10,053 $7,067 $4,088 $28,730SU-Cost Share $87 $91 $94 $98 $370UCSC $526 $546 $568 $544 $2,184CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $5,406 $4,018 $2,293 $1,890 $13,607INFN/ASI $3,988 $2,330 $1,904 $1,436 $9,658JGC $3,278 $460 $340 $0 $4,077Sweden $2,136 $1,051 $1,031 $1,512 $5,730UW $73 $76 $79 $82 $309Operations $11,276 $9,132 $8,923 $9,271 $9,632 $48,234SU-SLAC $10,525 $8,352 $8,112 $8,428 $8,757 $44,175SU-Cost Share $102 $106 $110 $114 $118 $549UCSC $564 $586 $609 $633 $658 $3,050CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0INFN/ASI $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0JGC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Sweden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0UW $85 $88 $92 $95 $99 $460Contributed Costs $8,490 $19,865 $23,015 $18,624 $13,376 $9,650 $11,276 $9,132 $8,923 $9,271 $9,632 $141,254Grand Total Costs $12,084 $23,756 $38,514 $38,915 $32,266 $16,186 $13,885 $11,380 $10,813 $10,883 $11,069 $219,752



Table 2.6.3 Summary of Total Cost by Phase with Full-Cost Accounting for NASA Institutions (FY99 K$)

Phase/Institution FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 TotalFormulation $3,918 $4,471 $8,389SU-HEPL $783 $933 $1,716GSFC $1,309 $1,878 $3,187NRL $1,791 $1,575 $3,365SSU $36 $84 $120Implementation $14,861 $18,559 $16,715 $5,849 $55,983SU-HEPL $4,761 $7,624 $7,659 $2,692 $22,736GSFC $4,738 $5,175 $4,108 $1,507 $15,527NRL $5,099 $5,441 $4,297 $1,302 $16,139SSU $263 $319 $651 $347 $1,580Operations $2,389 $1,991 $1,639 $1,376 $1,208 $8,602SU-HEPL $684 $573 $485 $395 $322 $2,459GSFC $911 $768 $608 $521 $501 $3,309NRL $744 $600 $500 $420 $345 $2,609SSU $50 $50 $45 $40 $40 $225Cost to NASA $3,918 $4,471 $14,861 $18,559 $16,715 $5,849 $2,389 $1,991 $1,639 $1,376 $1,208 $72,975

Formulation $8,156 $18,360 $26,516SU-SLAC $3,671 $7,348 $11,019SU-Cost Share $39 $78 $116UCSC $233 $467 $700CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $2,470 $3,760 $6,230INFN/ASI $570 $3,288 $3,858JGC $740 $1,655 $2,395Sweden $400 $1,700 $2,100UW $32 $65 $97Implementation $20,476 $15,945 $11,027 $7,659 $55,107SU-SLAC $6,692 $8,607 $5,826 $3,244 $24,370SU-Cost Share $78 $78 $78 $78 $311UCSC $468 $468 $468 $432 $1,835CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $4,810 $3,440 $1,890 $1,500 $11,640INFN/ASI $3,548 $1,994 $1,570 $1,140 $8,252JGC $2,916 $394 $280 $0 $3,590Sweden $1,900 $900 $850 $1,200 $4,850UW $65 $65 $65 $65 $260Operations $8,614 $6,714 $6,314 $6,314 $6,314 $34,268SU-SLAC $8,040 $6,140 $5,740 $5,740 $5,740 $31,400SU-Cost Share $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $388UCSC $431 $431 $431 $431 $431 $2,155CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0INFN/ASI $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0JGC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Sweden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0UW $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $325Contributed Costs $8,156 $18,360 $20,476 $15,945 $11,027 $7,659 $8,614 $6,714 $6,314 $6,314 $6,314 $115,891Grand Total Costs $12,074 $22,831 $35,337 $34,504 $27,742 $13,507 $11,003 $8,704 $7,952 $7,690 $7,522 $188,866



Table 2.6.4 Summary of Total Cost by Phase with Full-Cost Accounting for NASA Institutions (RY K$)

Phase/Institution FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 TotalFormulation $4,079 $4,837 $8,916SU-HEPL $815 $1,010 $1,825GSFC $1,363 $2,032 $3,395NRL $1,864 $1,704 $3,568SSU $38 $91 $129Implementation $16,704 $21,676 $20,275 $7,369 $66,025SU-HEPL $5,352 $8,905 $9,290 $3,392 $26,939GSFC $5,325 $6,044 $4,983 $1,899 $18,251NRL $5,731 $6,355 $5,213 $1,641 $18,940SSU $296 $373 $790 $437 $1,895Operations $3,128 $2,708 $2,316 $2,021 $1,843 $12,015SU-HEPL $895 $779 $686 $580 $491 $3,432GSFC $1,193 $1,044 $860 $765 $765 $4,626NRL $974 $816 $707 $617 $526 $3,640SSU $65 $68 $64 $59 $61 $317Cost to NASA $4,079 $4,837 $16,704 $21,676 $20,275 $7,369 $3,128 $2,708 $2,316 $2,021 $1,843 $86,956

Formulation $8,490 $19,865 $28,356SU-SLAC $3,822 $7,950 $11,772SU-Cost Share $40 $84 $124UCSC $243 $505 $748CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $2,571 $4,068 $6,640INFN/ASI $593 $3,558 $4,151JGC $770 $1,790 $2,561Sweden $416 $1,839 $2,256UW $34 $70 $104Implementation $23,015 $18,624 $13,376 $9,650 $64,665SU-SLAC $7,522 $10,053 $7,067 $4,088 $28,730SU-Cost Share $87 $91 $94 $98 $370UCSC $526 $546 $568 $544 $2,184CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $5,406 $4,018 $2,293 $1,890 $13,607INFN/ASI $3,988 $2,330 $1,904 $1,436 $9,658JGC $3,278 $460 $340 $0 $4,077Sweden $2,136 $1,051 $1,031 $1,512 $5,730UW $73 $76 $79 $82 $309Operations $11,276 $9,132 $8,923 $9,271 $9,632 $48,234SU-SLAC $10,525 $8,352 $8,112 $8,428 $8,757 $44,175SU-Cost Share $102 $106 $110 $114 $118 $549UCSC $564 $586 $609 $633 $658 $3,050CNES/CEA/IN2P3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0INFN/ASI $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0JGC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Sweden $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0UW $85 $88 $92 $95 $99 $460Contributed Costs $8,490 $19,865 $23,015 $18,624 $13,376 $9,650 $11,276 $9,132 $8,923 $9,271 $9,632 $141,254Grand Total Costs $12,569 $24,703 $39,719 $40,301 $33,651 $17,019 $14,404 $11,839 $11,239 $11,291 $11,475 $228,210



Table 2.6.5 Total Cost for Formulation and Implementation Phases, by WBS Element (FY99 K$)Formulation Implementation

WBS Instrument Subsystem FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Total4.1 Total Cost $11,608 $21,956 $34,266 $33,318 $26,600 $12,846 $140,593

4.1.1 Instrument Management $552 $1,270 $1,401 $1,469 $1,701 $1,191 $7,583SU-HEPL $64 $114 $241 $261 $315 $195 $1,190SU-Cost Share $39 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $427SU-SLAC $449 $1,079 $1,082 $1,131 $1,308 $918 $5,967

4.1.2 Systems Engineering $524 $1,294 $1,499 $1,271 $1,444 $345 $6,376SU-SLAC $489 $1,202 $1,226 $1,116 $1,159 $345 $5,538L-M $34 $92 $273 $155 $285 $0 $839

4.1.3 Science $611 $936 $1,656 $1,796 $1,888 $1,641 $8,527SU-HEPL $120 $169 $619 $671 $809 $779 $3,167GSFC $261 $303 $567 $650 $580 $381 $2,743SU-SLAC $65 $135 $141 $147 $171 $153 $813UCSC $132 $263 $263 $263 $263 $263 $1,448UW $32 $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $357

4.1.4 Tracker $3,234 $7,613 $8,755 $6,338 $3,240 $1,989 $31,168SU-SLAC $1,822 $2,466 $2,087 $3,745 $1,185 $680 $11,986UCSC $102 $204 $204 $204 $205 $168 $1,087Hiroshima University $740 $1,655 $2,916 $394 $280 $0 $5,984INFN $570 $3,288 $3,548 $1,994 $1,570 $1,140 $12,110

4.1.5 Calorimeter $4,130 $6,560 $10,105 $7,998 $4,990 $3,481 $37,264NRL $1,260 $1,100 $3,395 $3,658 $2,250 $781 $12,444CNES $2,470 $3,760 $4,810 $3,440 $1,890 $1,500 $17,870Sweden $400 $1,700 $1,900 $900 $850 $1,200 $6,950

4.1.6 Anticoindence Detector $529 $624 $3,077 $3,268 $2,272 $465 $10,234GSFC $529 $624 $3,077 $3,268 $2,272 $465 $10,234

4.1.7 Data Acquisition System $1,357 $1,630 $4,711 $6,564 $5,547 $1,455 $21,263SU-HEPL $573 $625 $2,454 $4,263 $3,143 $615 $11,672NRL $531 $475 $1,704 $1,783 $2,047 $521 $7,061SU-SLAC $253 $530 $553 $518 $356 $319 $2,529

4.1.8 Grid $251 $779 $1,240 $1,276 $617 $113 $4,274SU-HEPL (L-M) $0 $0 $1,218 $1,205 $503 $113 $3,038SU-SLAC (L-M) $251 $771 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,022GSFC $0 $8 $21 $71 $113 $0 $214

4.1.9 Integration and Testing $93 $446 $639 $1,712 $2,137 $511 $5,538SU-SLAC $41 $377 $639 $858 $300 $269 $2,484SU-HEPL $0 $0 $0 $854 $1,837 $242 $2,933GSFC $52 $69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $121

4.1.10 Performance Assurance $135 $629 $622 $616 $642 $157 $2,802SU-SLAC $135 $629 $622 $616 $642 $157 $2,802

4.1.11 Instrument Operations Center $156 $91 $299 $691 $1,471 $1,152 $3,862SU-HEPL $25 $25 $229 $372 $1,051 $750 $2,452SU-SLAC $131 $66 $70 $320 $420 $403 $1,410

4.1.12 Education & Public Outreach $36 $84 $263 $319 $651 $347 $1,701SSU $36 $84 $263 $319 $651 $347 $1,701