1 / 13

GLAST Large Area Telescope: Overview and Management Issues William E. Althouse

Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope. GLAST Large Area Telescope: Overview and Management Issues William E. Althouse Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford University LAT Instrument Project Manager wea@slac.stanford.edu. Overview and Management Issues. Outline

elita
Download Presentation

GLAST Large Area Telescope: Overview and Management Issues William E. Althouse

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. Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope GLAST Large Area Telescope: Overview and Management Issues William E. Althouse Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford University LAT Instrument Project Manager wea@slac.stanford.edu

  2. Overview and Management Issues Outline • Technical status, baseline development status • Status of MoAs • Action items and recommendations from Feb. review • Cost estimate W. Althouse 2

  3. Technical Status • All LAT and subsystem (level 2 and 3) requirements documents reviewed • Level 2 docs signed off and under configuration control • Level 3 docs signed off after SS PDRs (before LAT PDR) • Three major subsystem PDRs completed • Tracker, ACD, Calorimeter • Remainder scheduled for this week • Wed: Mechanical Systems • Thurs: Electronics, Data Acquisition and Flight Software • Fri: Instrument Operations Center; Science Analysis Software • Balloon flight successfully completed Balloon flight pix ... More pix ... Balloon flight data ... W. Althouse 3

  4. Baseline Preparation Status LAT status 8/14/01 W. Althouse 4

  5. Status of MoAs between SU-SLAC and collaborating institutions • GSFC/LHEA IPO action • NRL IPO action • UCSC/SCIPP signed • U Wash signed • CEA/DAPNIA & IN2P3, France; NRL Pending NASA/CNES LoA • Royal Inst. Of Technology & Stockholm Univ., Sweden; NRL signed • INFN, ASI, Italy Pending final approval from ASI • Hiroshima Univ., ISAS & RIKEN, Japan; UCSC/SCIPP signed W. Althouse 5

  6. From: Bonneville Richard <Richard.Bonneville@cnes.fr> To: "'Peter F. Michelson'" <peterm@Stanford.EDU> Cc: "'Joubert Martine'" <Martine.Joubert@cnes.fr>, "'Grenier Isabelle'" <isabelle.grenier@cea.fr> Subject: RE: GLAST Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:39:03 +0200 Dear prof. Michelson, I am pleased to inform you that our science program committee has issued a very positive recommendation about the French participation to GLAST. The official minutes are not available yet, but I already know the rough content. The CNES support for 2001 has been secured and we are presently writing the file with the detailed budget request for the following phases up to launch. The recommendation of the committee (together with the efficient lobbying of our partners from the French research institutes) is the green light that we needed. Best wishes _______________________ Richard BONNEVILLE Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales Direction des Programmes et des Affaires Industrielles Délégation à l'Etude et l'Exploration de l'Univers W. Althouse 6

  7. Action Items from 2/13 Review W. Althouse 7

  8. Management Recommendations from 2/13 Review • NASA and DOE should complete the agreement that establishes the Joint Oversight Group as soon as possible. • Complete and approve a Project Management Plan as soon as possible. • NASA and DOE should agree on guidelines for reporting on and reviewing the project that do not burden Project Management with duplicate requirements. • Develop an integrated, resource loaded schedule and cost estimate. • Develop better means of communicating within the collaboration and with subsystems. W. Althouse 8

  9. Improved Communication Tools In addition to internal technical reviews and many weekly meetings: • Collaboration meeting 8/1-2; next planned for spring 2002 • Quarterly SSAC meetings • Developing comprehensive project website • Focus on project documents: • Controlled drawings and specifications • Studies, design descriptions, presentation materials • Weekly IDT meeting minutes, issues and AI lists • Self-serve by local and remote LAT participants • Project calendar • Future: improved participant database • Improved visibility into processes • Monthly Project Controls meeting to discuss cost/schedule variances and corrective actions • Training for document posting • Future: CCB process, risk management, … W. Althouse 9

  10. IPO Project Staffing • Added 3 FTEs to system engineering • Added I&T Subsystem Manager, I&T Engineer W. Althouse 10

  11. Issue: Cost Estimate • Changes since 2/13 review: • NASA FY02 funding for LAT reduced $3M • Launch delayed 6 months • Estimated impacts: • LAT integration delayed 3 months • LAT cost increase: $5.8M ($2.5M DOE, $3.3M NASA) • E/PO scope increase: $1.4M (NASA) • Japanese funding profile for Si detectors • SLAC to fund $1.5M in FY01/02, repayment in FY04/05 • All cost estimates revisited “bottoms up” • Current estimated DOE/NASA cost = $100.2M (escalated $, no contingency) • Funding: • Current approved funding = $114.6M ($35M DOE, $79.6M NASA) • Japanese repayment for Si = $1.5M • Pending formal approval = $2.5M (DOE, for launch delay) TOTAL = $118.6M W. Althouse 11

  12. Cost Estimate (con’d) • Excluding FY00/01 cost (incurred), E/PO and Japanese “loan”: • Contingency = 23% ($118.6 – 20.3)/($100.2 – 20.3) = 1.23 • Insufficient reserves • Budget meeting 8/15 • Target estimated cost = $94M • Target contingency = 33% ($118.6 – 20.3)/($94 – 20.3) = 1.33 W. Althouse 12

  13. Cost Estimate (con’d) • … But a $6M cost reduction, which will be tough enough, isn’t the worst problem • Funding profile problem in FY02/03 • Estimate cost for FY02 = $24.1M • Available funding for FY02 = $21.7M -$2.4M • Estimated cost for FY03 = $27.2M • Available funding for FY03 = $29.9M +$2.7M • Problem has persisted since proposal W. Althouse 13

More Related