1 / 26

Role of the AMIGOS Development Plan

Role of the AMIGOS Development Plan. Tom Prince NASA LISA Mission Scientist Caltech/JPL October 13, 2005. The AMIGOS Workshop. Thanks for coming to the workshop! Important opportunity to help shape LISA data analysis development Goals of the workshop (TaP’s view)

baird
Download Presentation

Role of the AMIGOS Development Plan

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Role of the AMIGOS Development Plan Tom Prince NASA LISA Mission Scientist Caltech/JPL October 13, 2005

  2. The AMIGOS Workshop • Thanks for coming to the workshop! • Important opportunity to help shape LISA data analysis development • Goals of the workshop (TaP’s view) • Identify the development needs for LISA data analysis • Identify the highest prioritynear-term development needs • Help raise the consciousness for data analysis development for LISA • The document (AMIGOS) is not the important part! • The list of highest priority near-term development needs is! • AMIGOS is simply a vehicle for the NASA LISA project to document its needs and requirements

  3. Topics • This presentation • LISA Project 101 • AMIGOS as a LISA Project Document • Rationale • Digression: NASA Technology Development Plan • Format • Context • Funding for Data Analysis Development

  4. LISA Project 101 Most slides from presentation of ESA/NASA Project Managers (Gianolio/Ahmed) to the LIST - July 2005

  5. Project Managers’ ReportAlberto GianolioMansoor Ahmed LIST Meeting #9 Bern, Switzerland July 10, 2005

  6. 2. LISA Organization

  7. LISA International Science Team • European Members • Karsten Danzmann, U. Hannover/ MPI Quantenoptik, Co-Chair, ESA Mission Scientist • Oliver Jennrich, ESTEC, ESA Project Scientist • Pierre Binetruy, APC - College de France • Massimo Cerdonio, U. Padova • Michael Cruise, U. Birmingham • Curt Cutler, JPL (AEI Potsdam) • Jim Hough, U. Glasgow • Philippe Jetzer, U. Zurich • Alberto Lobo, U. Barcelona • Bernard Schutz, AEI Potsdam • Tim Sumner, Imperial College • Jean-Yves Vinet, Observatoire Cote d’Azur • Stefano Vitale, U. Trento • US Members Tom Prince, Caltech/JPL, Co-Chair, NASA Mission Scientist Robin Stebbins, GSFC, NASA Project Scientist Peter Bender, U. Colorado Sasha Buchman, Stanford Joan Centrella, GSFC Neil Cornish, Montana State Sam Finn, Penn State Jens Gundlach, U. Washington Bill Folkner, JPL Craig Hogan, U. Washington Scott Hughes, MIT Piero Madau, Santa Cruz Sterl Phinney, Caltech Doug Richstone, U. Michigan Kip Thorne, Caltech

  8. Roadmap To Phase-B (1/5) CURRENT ESA PROCESS Adv. Pre-A Ind. Contract 1999-2000 Implementation Operations Definit. Formul. Selection SPC Approval ITT ITT ITT IOCR LRR PSR FAR Launch SRR PDR CDR TRADITIONAL PHASES MDR Pre-A Advanced Studies A Mission Architecture Finalisation B1 B2 B Prelim. Detail. Des. Des. C EM Design & Developm. D FM Manuf. & AIV E In-orbit Commiss. F Operations/ Disposal A - B Transition Confirmation CURRENT NASA PROCESS Implementation Pre- Formulation Formulation LISA Project phases Today

  9. Mission Definition Review: NASA Success Criteria (4/5) • The mission science objectives are clearly understood • The science objectives are prioritized so as to define acceptable descope options • Mission level requirements are traceable to science objectives • Mission level requirements are clearly and logically allocated amongst the independent system elements • Flight, Ground, Launch Vehicle,…etc • End to End mission architecture is selected • It identifies a complete scenario for mission execution including data processing and analysis that will satisfy mission objectives. • Technology dependencies are fully defined • Mission risks are identified and viable mitigation plans are in place • The envisioned mission design will fully satisfy those requirements • The mission design is producible within imposed constraints and available cost and schedule resources.

  10. Science Products for MDR (5/5) • The following science products will have to be adequately mature at MDR: • Science objectives and priority • Science/payload requirements on the mission, S/C and Mission Operations System • Science program context • Science investigations • Science teams and management approach • Science observing operations/modes including coordinated and cooperative data taking • Science challenges • Science data analysis and archive concept • Science data return options, trade-offs and considerations • Major open items and resolution plans and assessment

  11. AMIGOS - One of several project documents • AMIGOS - data analysis methods development • Science Requirements Document (SRD) • Science Management Plan (SMP) • Defines NASA/ESA science teams, data sharing, guest investigator programs, etc. • Data Management Plan (DMP) • Describes the data analysis flow including levels of data, types of data products, data volumes, archiving, etc. • Others (TBD)

  12. 5. LIST/Project Interface and Interaction (1/1) • Project needs to frequently interact with the LIST for: • Development of science requirements • Project will solicit additional LIST inputs for: • Mission design and operations concepts • Guidance of the technology development • Instrument architecture & capabilities • Science data analysis architecture • Science Management Plan • Science products for the MDR • Strategies on expanding LISA advocacy • Need to develop processes to achieve the above objectives in a timely manner

  13. Where to go for additional information? • Scientist perspective: US Mission Science Office/US LIST website • www.srl.caltech.edu/lisa

  14. AMIGOS: A NASA LISA Project Document • AMIGOS is a “project” document • Specific format, role within project • Not a “community” document; Not an implementation plan (“what to do”, not “how to do”) • Rationale for the AMIGOS document • In late 2004 and early 2005, the NASA LISA Project prepared a Technology Development Plan to guide hardware technology development during the Formulation Phase of the project. • No comparable data analysis methods development plan was envisioned • US Mission Science Office proposed to write a data analysis methods development plan that would parallel the Technology Development Plan • Project management concurred - result was AMIGOS • Why was there a project Technology Development Plan, but not a Data Analysis Methods Development Plan? • Standard NASA project Formulation documents do not include a data analysis methods development plan; Data analysis is typically part of implementation, not development/formulation • Data analysis methods are typically mature and have significant heritage • But LISA is atypical!

  15. Digression: Technology Development Plan Slides for Gianolio/Ahmed presentation to LIST - July 2005

  16. Technology Development Status – NASA (1/5) • NASA Technology Development Plan completed in February 2005 • Represents the technology development work that NASA has to do • Represents a paradigm shift from earlier plans to conduct complete parallel efforts • Plan proposes cooperative/coordinated efforts. • Plan will save time and money but represents some increased risk.

  17. Technology Development Status – NASA (2/5) • Technology development centered around two areas • Inferferometry Measurement System (IMS) • Disturbance Reduction System (DRS) • Uses ITAT Reference Architectures and significant risk lists to help establish high level gates • Gates are a metric to assess technology achievements and project readiness. Gates are based on risk and risk reduction • Completion of gates required to transition to Implementation • Established twelve high level gates • Three Interferometry Measurement System • Nine Disturbance Reduction System • Identified significant milestones in the path of meeting the gate • Identified and budgeted tasks required to meet the milestones and thus the gates

  18. Technology Development Status – NASA (3/5) • Demonstrate with direct measurements of thrust, thrust noise, and key thruster operating parameters (beam voltage, beam current, thruster head temperature) that the microthruster control algorithms are correct and that the system (including PPU and DCIU) can meet the mission DRS requirements: • Thrust range from 4-30 N • Thrust precision of < 0.1 N over full range of operation • Thrust noise in the LISA bandwidth (0.1 mHz – 1 Hz) < 0.1 N/Hz • Component level validation (thruster head, micro-valve, electronics) is required for TRL 5, and a system level demonstration is required for TRL 6. In the case that a testbed capable of measuring thrust noise within the complete LISA bandwidth or on-orbit measurements are not available, validated thrust models based on key thruster operating parameters and direct thrust measurements can be used to show compliance. Example Gate: Trhuster Performance

  19. AMIGOS: Why this format? (1/5) • Format determined by 2 constraints • Parallel the Technology Development Plan language (e.g. Gates, Milestones, etc.) • Include traceable flowdown of requirements from Science Requirements Document • Why parallel the Technology Development Plan? • Allows needs of hardware and data analysis to be compared on an equal footing by using the same terminology • Significant effort expended in writing the Technology Plan - no need to develop (and “sell”) a new set of terminology specific to data analysis • Why trace back to Science Requirements Document? • All project requirements are derived from (or must be consistent with) the baseline science requirements • Clear traceability makes it easy to justify the proposed development tasks

  20. LISA Science Requirements Document

  21. AMIGOS: Format (2/5)

  22. AMIGOS: Format (3/5)

  23. AMIGOS: Format (4/5)

  24. AMIGOS: Format (5/5)

  25. Funding for Data Analysis Development • AMIGOS was written to identify LISA project needs in the area of data analysis methods development and to identify the support needed for that development • The LISA project had hoped for a significant increase over FY05 in the FY06 budget • The Project and the Mission Science Office had expected to be able to fund several contracts to the community for data analysis development • Discussed at July, 2005 LISA Science Team Meeting • The NASA LISA budget for FY06 is unfortunately a “keep-alive” budget (smaller than FY05) • Will only allow absolutely essential project activities • Interim steps (till FY07) • LISA Program Scientist, Ron Hellings, has been considering calling a meeting of NASA grantees working on LISA analysis (November?) • Will discuss needs of LISA project in data analysis (AMIGOS) • Will investigate which LISA development needs might be satisfied by grants and other sources of support

  26. Conclusion: what’s important, what’s not • Not so important: • Format • Must satisfy certain project needs • Polished final product • AMIGOS will likely morph into a later joint ESA/NASA document • We are committed to a single coordinated data analysis development plan • AMIGOS should be viewed as an interim document • Important: • Identify the development needs for LISA data analysis • Identify the highest prioritynear-term development needs • Provide tight justification: “why” and “why now” - linked to achieving performance capability demanded by science requirements • Must compete for resources with laser development, thruster development, … • Focus on technical content

More Related