1 / 24

MAVEN Particles and Fields Flight Software Peer Review RFAs and Recommendations Peter R. Harvey

MAVEN Particles and Fields Flight Software Peer Review RFAs and Recommendations Peter R. Harvey. Recommendation SwPDR-1. Title : Requirement 251 - Comm Loss Response Reviewer: S. Harris (Chair) Recommendation:

ccave
Download Presentation

MAVEN Particles and Fields Flight Software Peer Review RFAs and Recommendations Peter R. Harvey

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. MAVEN • Particles and Fields • Flight Software • Peer Review • RFAs and Recommendations • Peter R. Harvey

  2. Recommendation SwPDR-1 • Title : Requirement 251 - Comm Loss Response • Reviewer: S. Harris(Chair) • Recommendation: • Currently the time out is set to 3 seconds. Instrument needs an override on the response to deal with test scenarios. • Response: • The FSW response to a Communication Timeout is planned to be a Real-Time-Sequence action. Since all RTS’s can be disabled, it would be straightforward to disable that RTS in test scenarios when S/C messages are turned off.

  3. Recommendation SwPDR-2 • Title : Requirement 310 – Similar HV requirements • Reviewer: S. Harris(Chair) • Recommendation: • This requirement, as well as similar ones for several instruments, looks identical to the generic rule for HV control (Req 243). Why have separate requirement for Static and each instrument? • Response: • Agreed. Below is a comparison of the HV requirements. We plan to move common elements to one general requirement, and leave unique elements with each instrument HV system.

  4. Recommendation SwPDR-3 • Title : Requirement 516 - Typo • Reviewer: S. Harris(Chair) • Recommendation: • “Sun” should be “Sum” • Response: • Corrected in the MAVEN_PF_SYS_010_FSWRequirements revision F • And will be corrected in MAVEN_PF_FSW_002_SRS revision D

  5. Recommendation SwPDR-4 • Title : S/C Command Timing • Reviewer: S. Harris(Chair) • Recommendation: • The gap time between commands from the S/C needs clarification in the ICD. • Response: • Will clarify the timing in the S/C ICD has no TBDs and is consistent with the FPGA and FSW expectations. • Answer:

  6. Recommendation SwPDR-5 • Title : New Platform, New FSW Risk • Reviewer: S. Harris(Chair) • Recommendation: • The team should consider adding a project risk that using a new processor (Coldfire) and developing the FSW in a different language (C), presents a risk to the schedule. The FSW is based on the same architecture as the heritage code, but is being entirely re-written in C and assembly, for a different processor, using a new development environment • Response: • We have added this to the risk list as a schedule risk (not technical since we have plenty of technical margins). The plan would be to watch the development to determine what troubles we run into. If the conversion process is much more difficult than planned, we should review the approach before we run out of time.

  7. Recommendation SwPDR-6 • Title : Document Due Dates • Reviewer: T. Jackson • Recommendation: • Re-evaluate your project requested document list and due dates. Your list is not correct. • Response: • MAVEN-SYS-PLAN-0020 page 47 is the source of columns 1 and 2 of the table below. The STP and SMP are due in 2011 and 2012 and are not due this year. The confusion stems from pages 41 and 42 where these documents are listed as necessary for the successful PDR.

  8. Recommendation SwPDR-7 • Title : Re-Evaluate FSW Risks • Reviewer: T. Jackson • Recommendation: • Re-evaluate your current risks. Add in some realistic risks. Also remove the absurd. • Response: • The risk list shown in the presentation showed only the format of risks, and was not supposed to represent the actual list. We plan to provide a FSW risk list shortly.

  9. Recommendation SwPDR-8 • Title : Define Instrument Mode Set • Reviewer: E. Taylor • Recommendation: • Comment during the review that we wouldn't have defined instrument modes, configuration is set by RTS. Suggest a number of modes be explicitly defined for test and used initially for early orbit operations. (Compression algorithms should be run on modes to get accurate (tested) estimate of real data volume). • Response: • Will define a risk here, that we don’t understand the interplay between instruments and this could lead to resource issues of one sort or another. We would retire the risk by defining the modes carefully.

  10. Recommendation SwPDR-9 • Title : S/C Interface Concerns • Reviewer: E. Taylor • Recommendation: • Not a lot of confidence in the SC/PFIDPU Interface. Seemed to be confusion on what was in ICD, what should be in there. No LM SC Simulator is being delivered to UCB. ETU test is hardware test only, LM instrument I/F FSW will not be implemented until shortly before Instrument delivery • Response: • We could define a risk here that the FSW is being developed while the S/C interface is still changing. Of course, it is standard practice to have these TBDs for a while. Nonetheless, we would retire the risk when the ICD is firm.

  11. Recommendation SwPDR-10 • Title : New Platform, New FSW Risk • Reviewer: E. Taylor • Recommendation: • New software language (0 line of codes re-use), new platform should be a risk. • Response: • Same response as SwPDR-5

  12. Recommendation SwPDR-11 • Title : Simplify HV Control Requirements • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the requirements section, there are many requirements for HV control that seem to be the same. Perhaps it would be better to reduce these to a single requirement.. • Response: • Same response as SwPDR-2

  13. Recommendation SwPDR-12 • Title : Simplify Attenuator Control Requirements • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the requirements section, there are many requirements for Attenuator control that seem to be the same. Perhaps it would be better to reduce these to a single requirement. • Response: • Agreed. Below is a comparison of the Atten requirements. We plan to move common elements to one general requirement, and leave unique elements with each instrument attenuator.

  14. Recommendation SwPDR-13 • Title : Requirement 516: Typo • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the requirements section, PFFSW-516 has "Sun" instead of "Sum" in two places. Needs to be corrected in the SRS. • Response: • Same response as SwPDR-3

  15. Recommendation SwPDR-14 • Title : Requirement 802 Correction • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the requirements section, PFFSW-802 has 256 bytes per table. This should be 512 bytes per table. • Response: • Corrected in the MAVEN_PF_SYS_010_FSWRequirements revision F • And will be corrected in MAVEN_PF_FSW_002_SRS revision D

  16. Recommendation SwPDR-15 • Title : Code Coverage Metric • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the plan section, page 6, the Code Warrior toolset includes a code coverage metric which may be useful. • Response: • We already bought the Standard version and it does not include the code coverage analysis. If we buy another copy, we will consider this option.

  17. Recommendation SwPDR-16 • Title : New Platform, New FSW Risk • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the plan section, page 9, a risk should be written that captures the "new" development environment, new language. • Response: • Same response as SwPDR-5

  18. Recommendation SwPDR-17 • Title : Document Due Dates • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the plan section, page 17, the STP and SMP are not due at this time. • Response: • Same response as SwPDR-6

  19. Recommendation SwPDR-18 • Title : SRAM typo • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the design section, page 3, the DRAM should be SRAM. • Response: • Corrected in the figure for PDR.

  20. Recommendation SwPDR-19 • Title : TM Output requirement • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the design section, page 7, the TM only has one low rate output. There is no high rate transmitter • Response: • Corrected in the figure for PDR.

  21. Recommendation SwPDR-20 • Title : SWIA description • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the design section, page 7, the SWIA has a "manager" too • Response: • Corrected in the figure for PDR.

  22. Recommendation SwPDR-21 • Title : TM NOOP Requirement • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the design section, page 11, the TM needs to produce something every 5 seconds, at minimum a NOOP • Response: • Corrected in the figure for PDR.

  23. Recommendation SwPDR-22 • Title : TM Allocation Table is Old • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the design section, page 11, the PF telemetry breakdown table is old. The new table is SYS-002K • Response: • Corrected in the figure for PDR.

  24. Recommendation SwPDR-23 • Title : Flash Capacity Typo • Reviewer: P. Harvey Notes • Recommendation: • In the design section, page 25, the capacity of the Flash is 8GB, not 32 • Response: • Corrected in the figure for PDR.

More Related