GLAST Large Area Telescope: LAT Project Management William E. Althouse Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford Unive

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

2. LAT Project Management Outline • LAT Project overview: scope, schedule • Participants, WBS, organization, relationships • Funding • System engineering, configuration management • Project management control system description, status • Risk management; contingency management • Major milestones, issues & mitigations, conclusions

3. Overview

4. LAT Project Scope • Develop & deliver the LAT flight instrument in accordance with Collaboration proposal (Nov. ’99) & GLAST Mission level II specs • Ground support equipment • Balloon flight test • Support integration into GLAST observatory • Support launch, post-launch mission operations • Develop & provide Instrument Operations Center • Develop & provide ground software necessary to support the above • Develop ground software for science data analysis • Provide management, system engineering, and performance & safety assurance as required • Provide E/PO services for GLAST Mission • Support & participate in Mission Operations & Data Analysis

5. Schedule Overview Calendar Years 2010 2003 2000 2005 2002 2004 2001 I-CDR (Joint DOE/NASA Review) Launch Inst. Delivery M-CDR SRR PDR NAR Implementation Ops. Formulation Inst. I&T Inst.-S/C I&T Build & Test Flight Units Build & Test Engineering Models Schedule Reserve Baseline Review 1st Joint DOE/NASA of GLAST LAT

6. Organization

7. LAT Development Organizations • California State University at Sonoma (SSU) • University of California at Santa Cruz - Santa Cruz Institute of Particle Physics (UCSC/SCIPP) • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (CNRS/IN2P3)1 • Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique / Direction des Sciences de la Matière/ Département d'Astrophysique, de physique des Particules, de physique Nucléaire et de l'Instrumentation Associée (CEA/DSM/DAPNIA)1 • Goddard Space Flight Center – Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics (NASA/GSFC/LHEA) • Hiroshima University2 • Institute for Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS)2 • Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) • Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) • RIKEN2 • Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)3 • Stanford University – Hanson Experimental Physics Laboratory (SU-HEPL) • Stanford University - Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SU-SLAC) • Stockholm University3 • Texas A&M University – Kingsville • University of Washington 1French Team 2Japanese GLAST Collaboration (JGC) 3Swedish GLAST Collaboration (SGC)

8. Work Breakdown Structure

9. System Engineer T. Thurston, SU-SLAC Electronics & DAQ Flight Software G. Haller, SU-SLAC Performance & Safety Assurance D. Marsh, SU-SLAC TKR R. Johnson, UCSC SLAC, Italy, Japan CAL N. Johnson, NRL France, Sweden ACD J. Ormes, GSFC IOC S. Williams, SU-HEPL Sci. Software R. Dubois, SU-SLAC Team Balloon Flight D. Thompson, GSFC Team GLAST LAT Organization Collaboration Science Team E/PO L. Cominsky, SSU Principal Investigator P. Michelson, SU SSAC N. Gehrels, GSFC Instrument Scientist S. Ritz, GSFC Project Manager W. Althouse, SU-SLAC Instrument Design Team T. Kamae, SU-SLAC IPO Project Controls T. Boysen, SU-SLAC Integration & Test M. Nordby, SU-SLAC Mech. Systems M. Nordby, SU-SLAC

10. DOE/NASA JOG Level I Documents Level II Documents NASA/GSFC GLAST Project Office NASA/GSFC GLAST Project Office SU-SLAC IPO SU-SLAC IPO Level III Documents SU-SLAC I&T Mgr. SU-HEPL IOC Mgr. GSFC/LHEA ACD Mgr. UCSC Tkr Mgr. NRL Cal Mgr. SU-SLAC Mech. Sys. Engr. SU-SLAC Chief Elec. Engr. SU-SLAC SAS Mgr. SU-SLAC Tkr Engr. CEA/DAPNIA: French Proj. Mgr IN2P3 KTH Stockholm Univ. JGC Si Det. Mgr. (Hiroshima) Collaboration Institutions INFN Labs Italian Proj. Mgr. (Pisa) UCSC NRL SU-HEPL CEA/DAPNIA (Power Sys) GSFC/LHEA SU-SLAC Relations between LAT Organizations: Technical direction (deliverables flow oppositely) DOE/NASA JOG Relationships established by MoAs & IAs Level I Documents Level II Documents NASA/GSFC GLAST Project Office SU-SLAC IPO Level III Documents SU-SLAC I&T Mgr. SU-HEPL IOC Mgr. GSFC/LHEA ACD Mgr. UCSC Tkr Mgr. NRL Cal Mgr. SU-SLAC Mech. Sys. Engr. SU-SLAC Chief Elec. Engr. SU-SLAC SAS Mgr. SU-SLAC Tkr Engr. CEA/DAPNIA: French Proj. Mgr IN2P3 KTH Stockholm Univ. JGC Si Det. Mgr. (Hiroshima) Collaboration Institutions INFN Labs Italian Proj. Mgr. (Pisa) UCSC NRL SU-HEPL CEA/DAPNIA (Power Sys) GSFC/LHEA SU-SLAC

11. Funding

12. Wallenberg Foundation DOE INFN / ASI CNES / CEA / IN2P3 NASA HQ NASA HQ Wallenberg Foundation Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, & Technology INFN / ASI CNES / CEA / IN2P3 NASA/GSFC GLAST Proj. Office NASA/GSFC GLAST Proj. Office Funding Sources KEK (US-Japan) LAT Collaboration Institutions CEA/ DAPNIA IN2P3 Labs INFN Labs KTH Stockholm University CEA/ DAPNIA IN2P3 Labs INFN Labs KTH Stockholm University GSFC/LHEA GSFC/LHEA NRL NRL x x x x IPO IPO RIKEN Institute Hiroshima University ISAS UCSC HEPL SSU Relations between LAT Organizations: Funding Japan Sweden France Italy U.S.A. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, & Technology DOE KEK (US-Japan) SU SLAC IPO JGC RIKEN Institute Hiroshima University ISAS UCSC HEPL SSU

13. LAT WBS 4.1 Funding Total = $158.2M

14. LAT WBS 4.1 Funding

15. System Engineering

16. System Engineering • System trade studies • Decomposition and validation of requirements • LAT System and Subsystem Requirements • Subsystem Interface Control Documents (ICDs) • Technical risk assessment • Parts and materials planning, qualification, listing • FMECA, fault tree analysis • Design integration and verification • Support Instrument/Observatory ICD development • Coordination with spacecraft contractor • Supported by IDT

17. LAT Trade Studies • Many studies complete prior to Nov. ’99 proposal (S. Ritz presentation) • Studies completed since selection • Tracker SSD size, pitch  instrument footprint, mass • SSD spec finalized, prototypes made and evaluated • Tracker radiator thickness distribution • Grid material: Al vs. CFC • Aluminum selected • To be resolved • ACD segmentation • Optimize number of on-board processors • Optimize science during intense solar flares • Optimize I&T, calibration and verification testing plans • System Engineer supports subsystem internal trade studies

18. Level I Project Specifications Program Plan Requirements Level II System Specifications Level II(a) System Operations Concept Document GLAST00089 Science Req’ts Document GLAST00010 Mission Assurance Requirements GLAST00110 Mission System Specification GLAST00074 Level II(b) Element Spacecraft Performance Spec. LV Interface Specification SC-SI Interface Specification GLAST00038 GBM Instrument Performance Spec. LAT Instrument Performance Spec. LAT-SP-00010 SGL Comm Interface Spec. Inter-Center Interface Spec. GBM IOC Specification Science Support Center Spec. Mission Operations Center Spec. LAT IOC Performance Spec. LAT-SP-00015 Level III Subsystem Specifications LAT SAS Spec. LAT-SP-00020 LAT - ACD Spec. LAT-SP-00016 LAT - TKR Spec. LAT-SP-00017 LAT - CAL Spec. LAT-SP-00018 T&DF Spec. LAT-SP-00019 Aux. Subsystem Spec. LAT-SP-000xx LOF Spec. LAT-SP-00021 LAT Interface Spec. LAT-SP-000xx Document under control of the LAT Project Document not under control of the LAT Project LAT Specification Tree • Level II(b) specsderived from II(a) • LAT Performance Specs collect all applicable Level IIrequirements into one place

19. Configuration Management • All project documentation stored in central database, with individual controlled access via WWW • Configuration Item List maintained by LAT Document Librarian • Single Document Change Notice (DCN) form for initial release to configuration control (technical baseline), and to record changes; includes provision for red-line markups • Subsystem managers approve majority of changes (detailed specifications, drawings) • LAT CCB approves changes to level III documents/baselines

20. Project Management Control System Overview Change Control Funds Management Scheduling (P3) Status Reporting (Cobra) AccountingInterfaces Variance,Critical PathAnalysis Cost, Budget* (Cobra) Performance Measurement Integrated PMCS *DOE/NASA funded elements only • Copy of SLAC systems for PEP II, BaBar, SPEAR III

21. PMCS: A “Work in Progress” • Developing WBS and WBS dictionary • Developing bottoms-up cost estimate • Performing systematic contingency analysis • Primavera P3 • Developing resource loaded schedules • Identifying key milestones, external links (held in PM WBS) • Developing accounting interfaces • Development toward baseline • All inputs due in March • First process cycle in April • Stability by June • Budget and schedule baselines ready in July

22. Status of PMCS Inputs

23. 4.1 GLAST LAT PROJECT

24. 4.1 GLAST LAT PROJECT INCOMPLETE

25. Risk Management

26. Risk Management • Risk management tools • Risk identification & management – risk reduction planning • Performance metrics • Contingency (reserve/margin) management • Single interface at DOE, NASA, IPO for all requirements • Weekly telecon meetings • Thorough validation & verification processes

27. Risk Reduction Planning • Use of engineering models to minimize activities in series with instrument integration, test and delivery schedule • Grid engineering model and instrument thermal model permit independent testing of flight radiators • Electronics EMs to permit early flight software verification, support beam test calibration activities • Tracker, Calorimeter and ACD EMs to support early flight software verification, support equipment and test software/procedure verification • ACD EM to support beam test calibration • SSD trade study balanced margins for • Science requirements • Mass  instrument footprint  SSD size • Power  number of signal channels  SSD strip pitch • Considering construction of thermal vacuum test facility at SLAC to reduce risk of dependence on off-site facilities • Study team to develop calibration plan, I&T strategies

28. Technical Performance Metrics

29. Instrument Mass

30. Instrument Power

31. LAT DOE & NASA Cost

32. Major Milestones, Issues, Conclusions

33. LAT Project Milestones • Instrument System Requirements Review (SRR) 9/28/00 (C) • LAT Preliminary Design Review (PDR) 8/6/01 • LAT Critical Design Review (CDR) 8/5/02 • Subsystems deliveries for beam test calibrations 5/15/03-8/1/03 • Calibration unit ready for beam tests 9/1/03 • Subsystem deliveries for instrument I&T 10/1/03-12/24/03 • Calibration activities complete 1/26/04 • Flight hardware delivered to LAT integration • LAT ready for environmental testing 4/9/04 • LAT Pre-Ship Review (PSR) 10/7/04 • LAT ready for integration with Observatory 12/22/04 • GLAST launch 9/05

34. Project Issues and Mitigations • International commitments • Aggressively working to get signed MoAs and International Agreements • DOE/NASA Implementing Arrangement • Working to facilitate agreement • Flight software development • Aggressively recruiting additional manpower • Balloon flight schedule • Working to reduce conflicting demands on shared personnel • Lack of SLAC on-site space experienced EEE parts engineer • Seeking local contractor help • Use of off-site environmental test facilities • Proposed on-site thermal vacuum test facility • Inadequate reserves to deal with significant budget/schedule hiccups by any major sponsor

35. Project Manager’s Conclusions • We have developed the organization to do the job • We have identified and are strengthening weak spots • Technical design was very mature at start of Formulation Phase • We are focusing on developing a sound project basis • Project is schedule driven, compressed between availability of funding and launch • After assuring performance and safety, tracking and controlling schedule progress is paramount • Combined DOE, NASA and other domestic and foreign partner resources make the ambitious LAT goals possible • Don’t go to launch pad with our fingers crossed • Do the necessary planning, finish design and fab as early as prudent, to leave maximum time for testing • Test thoroughly to develop confidence