THEMIS Confirmation Assessment Project Overview Peter R. Harvey

1. THEMIS Confirmation Assessment • Project Overview • Peter R. Harvey • University of California - Berkeley

2. Overview • Project Assessment • Organization • Structure & Team Composition, Roles and Responsibilities • Work Breakdown Structure, Key Personnel • Management Processes • Management, Systems Engineering, Performance Assurance, IV&V • Communications • Scheduling • Development, Maintenance, Key Features, Performance Metrics • Resources • Labor, Facilities • Cost • Development, Maintenance, Key Features, Changes, Metrics • Modeling, Descopes, Incentives • Past Performance, Phase A/B Performance • Risk • Plans, Top Level Risks, Risk Retirements • Summary

3. Explorers Office Frank Snow, Mission Mgr U.C. Berkeley Vassilis Angelopoulos, PI Peter Harvey, PM KSC Tammy Harrington, Mission Integ Mgr Swales Aerospace Mike Cully CETP Alain Roux UCLA Chris Russell U.Colo/LASP Bob Ergun GSFC/GNCD Karen Richon Univ of Calgary Eric Donovan TU-BS Uli Auster Univ of Alberta J. Samson IWF Werner Magnes THEMIS Organization Chart Subcontracts/Agreements Phases BCD Organization Top Level Organization Chart

4. Organization Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

5. THEMIS Project 1. Management, Science, Systems Eng. 2. Space Segment Development 3. Ground Segment Development 4. Mission Ops & Data Analysis 5. Education & Public Outreach 3.1 Mission Operations Center 1.1 Management 2.1 Instruments 4.1 Mission Operations 1.2 Science 2.2Spacecraft 3.2 Science Operations Center 4.2 Data Analysis 1.3 Systems Engineering 3.3 Ground Based Observatories THEMIS Work Breakdown Structure Organization Work Breakdown Structure

6. Management, Science and Systems Engineering Program Management Peter Harvey Systems Engineering Ellen Taylor Science V. Angelopoulos Management Support K. Harps Finances M. Larson Purchasing M. Giordano Documentation D. Meilhan Scheduling A. Shutkin Administration Electrical Ellen Taylor Science Support Bonnell, John Carlson, Chuck Delory, Gregory Frey, Harald Hull, Art Larson, Davin Lin, Robert Mende, Steven Moreau, Thomas Mozer, Forrest Parks, George Peticolas, Laura Phan, Tai Temerin, Michael Mechanical /Thermal Paul Turin Chris Smith Facility Support J. Cooks Contracts J. Keenan Purchasing G. Davis Accounting J. Williams Travel J. Jones Personnel EMC/ESC/MAG Robert Snare (UCLA) Quality & Safety Ron Jackson UCB Sponsored Projects D. Weldon Contracting Parts Jorg Fischer THEMIS WBS 1.0 Organization Management, Systems Engineering, Science

7. Instruments Instrument Data Processor Unit (IDPU) Electric Field Instrument (EFI) ElectroStatic Analyser (ESA) Solid State Telescope (SST) Fluxgate Mag (FGM) Search Coil Mag (SCM) Robert Abiad Peter Berg Heath Bersch Dorothy Gordon Frank Harvey Selda Heavner Jim Lewis Jeanine Potts Chris Scholz Kathy Walden Forrest Mozer John Bonnell Greg Delory Art Hull Bill Donakowski Greg Dalton Robert Duck Mark Pankow Dan Schickele Stu Harris Hilary Richard Charles Carlson M. Marckwardt Bill Elliott Ron Herman Robert Lin Davin Larson Ron Canario Robert Lee T. Moreau TUBS/IWF Uli Auster K.H. Glassmeier W. Magnes CETP Alain Roux Bertran de la Porte Olivier Le Contel Christophe Coillot Abdel Bouabdellah Instrument I&T Rick Sterling Mag Booms LASP Robert Ergun Aref Nammari Ken Stevens Jim Westfall Hari Dharan Y. Kim Tien Tan Bill Tyler THEMIS WBS 2.1 Organization Instrument Development

8. Ground Segment Mission Ops Science Ops (Mission Planning) Ground Based Observatories Manfred Bester Mark Lewis Tim Quinn Sabine Frey Tai Phan John Bonnell Laura Peticolas All Sky Imagers Ground Magnetometers Fielding & Operation (UC&UA) Stephen Mende Stu Harris Steve Geller Harald Frey UCLA Chris Russell Joe Means Dave Pierce UC Eric Donovan GSFC/GCND David Sibeck Mark Beckman Bob DeFazio David Folta Rick Harman UA J. Samson THEMIS WBS 3 Organization Ground Systems Development

9. Key Personnel • Experience of Key Personnel

10. Processes • Management Responsibilities • Staffing and Facilities, Training and Certification • Subcontract Generation and Tracking • Schedule Generation and Tracking • Budget Generation and Tracking • Cost .v. Schedule Compliance • Risk Identification, Risk Tracking, Risk Actions • Descope Identification, Cost Evaluation, Descope Actions • Trade Studies Identification, Evaluation, Change Implementation • Action Item Generation, Distribution and Tracking • Technical & Financial Report Generation

11. Processes • Systems Engineering Responsibilities • Requirements Identification and Formalization • Design Coordination, Studies (FTA, FMEA, etc) • Technical Review Coordination, Informal and Formal • ICD Generation • Configuration Control • Verification Plan Development • Design Compliance • Operations Plan Development • Action Item Management • Weekly telecons on S/C bus, Instrumentation, Ground Systems • Periodic On-site meetings

12. Processes • Performance Assurance Responsibilities • Assurance Requirements Identification • Performance Assurance Implementation Plan • Subcontractor Assurance Plan Reviews • System Safety Support • Supplier On-Site Inspections of Facilities and Procedures • Parts and Materials Research, Selection • Parts Qualification, Procurement incl. Common Buy Program • Verification Planning • Inspections and Test Verifications • Failure Report Management • Weekly telecons on S/C bus, Instrumentation, Ground Systems • Periodic On-site meetings

13. Processes • Independent Verification and Validation Extensive Internal Review of Essential Software • Bus Avionics Unit: Telecom, Bus Control, Minimal Autonomy • IDPU : Instrument Control, Data Storage, Calculations • Operations: ReUse of GSFC-supplied software Self Assessment using IV&V Metrics • Loss of One Probe Yielded Consequence of Insignificant-Marginal • Small Software Size Yielded Likelihood of 29-30 • Information Provided to IV&V for Cost Estimate/Concurrence Cost Assumptions • Full IV&V Funding Included in Budget • Assume IV&V Works with Available Documentation and Schedule MOU for Initial Assessment is in Place

14. Processes • Team Communications • Day-to-Day • Email List Server • FTP sites for documents • Conferencing • Weekly Meetings/Telecons • Status of Space & Ground • Eng Change Notices • Cost and Schedule • Risks • Monthly Meetings and Reports • Comprehensive Report Integrating All Internal Status • All Development Team Leads Provide Narratives • Swales Narrative, Long-Lead and Milestone Schedules, Costs • Integrated Reports Available on the THEMIS website

15. Schedule • Schedule Management Bottom Up Development • Followed Concept • Developer-Generated Schedule Maintenance • Developers Report to Their Schedule Weekly • 3 Full-Time Schedulers at Mission, Project and Probe Levels • Provides Status to Project Management & Mission Manager • Critical Path Analyses are Provided in the Next Section

16. Schedule • Key Features Instrument Development • EM Instrument I/F Testing with EM Probe I/F • Integrate Instrument Complement at UCB Prior to S/C Integration • Instrument Complement F1 Tested First Followed by Pairs • All Instrument Complements are Complete before S/C I&T Begins • Instrument I&T Team Will Be Focusing Upon S/C I&T • Added Some Facilities for Qualifying Instruments in Parallel Spacecraft Development • Integration and Test of Probe1 Completed Prior to Probes 2-5 • Sufficient Manpower and Equipment for Parallel I&T Ground Development • Development and Deployment of 5 GBOs 2 in 1Q05 • Development and Deployment of all 20 GBO’s in 1Q06

17. Schedule • Relevant Prior Schedule Performance FAST Instruments (EFI, ESA, MAG, IDPU) • Hopped in Front of SWAS • Delivered Complement on Time POLAR / CLUSTER I & II (EFI) • Polar EFI Delivered 8 months ahead of time • Cluster EFW I & II Delivered > 45 Flight Units to WEC in time. HESSI (Management, IDPU) • Phase B to JPL Environmental Tests (Est. 23 mo, Act. 23.2 mo) • Re-Confirmation to VAFB Delivery (Est. 6 mo, Act 6.3 mo) EO-1 (S/C Management) • S/C Bus (w Hyperion) delivered 6/99 on time • Swap with IMAGE, Red Team directives, ALERT, etc Delayed 11m

18. Schedule • Metrics Milestone Comparisons to HESSI Sufficient Definition • Task Count ~ 1425 Slack • Instruments have 4-8 months slack to Earliest I&T with Probes • Instruments have 6-9 months slack to Expected I&T with Probes • Integrated Probes/Probe Carrier have 3 months to LV Integration

19. Resources

20. Resources • SSL Projects STEREO Personnel Not Available; MMS Now Starting Up SNAP and MMS Projects Will Help Offload Personnel

21. Resources • Facilities • Chamber Availability at UCB/SSL • Numerous Tanks of Varying Sizes & Types • One New Chamber Needed for THEMIS • One Calibration Chamber Needs Parts • TV Plan Design • 2 Component-Level TV Cycles • 6 Instrument Level TV Cycles • Chamber Usage During Relevant Performance Periods

22. Cost • Cost Management Bottom Up Development • Followed Schedule Development • Developers Submitted Detailed Requirements • Generated Level 3 Budgets by Month • Iterated with Developers to Understand Costs • Removed Overlapping Efforts between WBS • Generated a Final Master Cost • Generated Comparison Data from Prior Projects • Reviewed and Approved by THEMIS Board of Directors, SPO, UCOP Budget Maintenance • UCB Financial Data & Subcontractor Reports Matched to Budget • Project Management Comparison of Cost v Schedule • Non-Compliances Get Management Attention • Workarounds include Work Reduction, Addition Support, ReOrganization

23. Cost • Key Features Instrument Development • Integrate & Test at UCB Using Mostly Existing Facilities • Simplified Instrument Interfacing • Automated Instrument Testing at S/C Lowers Extended Travel Efforts Spacecraft Development • Simplified Probe Carrier Design • Relaxed Probe Attitude Requirements and Simplified Design • Complexity Left on the Ground • Use of Existing Environmental Facilities at GSFC Ground Development • Leverage HESSI & FAST Operations • Incorporate GSFC/GNCD Software and Expertise

24. Cost • Cost Changes from Proposal Growth in Management, Systems Engineering • Compared to HESSI Actual Costs Scaled to Development Task • Now Matches within 0.2% Growth in Probe/Probe Carrier/LV • Most Probe/PC Activity Directly Accountable to Risk Retirements • Modest Growth (5.6%) in Defining Specific Suppliers, Spares, etc.

25. Cost • Cost Reasonableness THEMIS Phase B/C/D Costs Compare Well to HESSI Actual Costs • THEMIS Instruments Require Less Development than HESSI THEMIS Phase E Mission Operations Suitably Larger • Handling 5 Probes Instead of 1; Cost Estimated at 3x

26. Cost • Instrument Mass .v. Cost Modeling • Categorized Each Component by its Complexity • Computed Mass of Flight & Spare Units • Grass Roots Budget is 6% Over Model So Budget is Sufficient • High TRLs from 6.75 to 7.5

27. Cost • Available Descope Options Modest Requirements Allow Flexibility in Instrumentation Power, Mass, Cost Savings are Available

28. Cost • Incentive Plan (UCB-Swales Contract tbd) • 2% for Probes/Probe Carrier Delivery on Time • 2% for Probes On-Orbit Performance • Delta-V, Communication, Power, Thermal Requirements met • Each is $750K • Paid Only if Reserve is Available • Balance of Schedule and Performance Exactly as Used on HESSI • Rationale • On Schedule Delivery Incentive Compares to ~ 20 day Program Delay • On-Orbit Performance Helps Keep Focus on Quality and Support in L&EO • Used Successfully on HESSI • Industry Standard Practice

29. Cost Performance • Relevant Prior Cost Performance POLAR / CLUSTER I & II (EFI) • Polar EFI Delivered at 37% Under Budget • Cluster EFW I Delivered 40% Under Budget. • Cluster EFW II Was Built using Reserve from EFW I HESSI (Management, IDPU) • Completed Spacecraft & Ground Systems at 8% Under Budget • Re-Built Spacecraft 39% Under Budget EO-1 (S/C Management) • S/C Bus Delivered on Fixed Price • NASA Directed Additional Effort • Safe Hold & GPS (GFE) changes • Hyperion Addition • Launch Delays (IMAGE Swap) • WARP (GFE) Rework • Red Team Directed Risk Mitigations HESSI UCB Actual Cost v Plan

30. Cost Performance • Phase A/B Cost Performance v Budget • Average Compliance Between 3-6% below budget(Red v Blue)

31. Cost Performance • Phase A/B Cost Performance by WBS

32. Cost Performance • Phase A/B Cost Performance by WBS

33. Risk • Risk Management UCB/Swales Management Taking Lowest Risk Approach Overall • Assessments Generated by Knowledgeable Engineering • Tradeoffs Discussed with PI in Weekly Telecons Risk Management Plan Status • Swales Risk Management Plan in place • UCB/SSL Mission Operations RMP in place • THEMIS Project RMP in development • GSFC-UCB meeting scheduled Dec 9-10

34. Risk • Programmatic Risks Probe Development Cost • Largest Development Effort (2.5x instrumentation) • Limited options for Suppliers Given Low Mass/Power Reqmts • Counting on Swales/GSFC/UCB Experience in Small S/C • UCB FOT Involvement Could Help Lower I&T Costs Instrument Schedule • Historically Instrumenters Are Understaffed at Start and Play Catch Up • Heritage Often Means You Can’t Get the Parts Anymore • Project Management Direct Involvement in Staffing (30 FTE of 35 planned) • Coordinate Parts Early (Currently Revision 20) Design Flaws • Components Qualified Prior to Probe1 I&T – Could Be 6 Wrong • ETU Probe-to-Instrument Interface Testing Prior to Flight Build Up

35. Risk • Technical Risks Top Phase A Retirements Taken to Retire Risk • Simplified Probe Carrier, Launch Sequence • Simplified Probe Maneuvering, Safing • Scheduled Early Testing to Detect Design Flaws • Dropped New Technology HCI and Micro-Gyro Top Phase B Retirements to Reduce Risk (in Instruments) • Added Redundant Actuators on Mag and AXBs • Implemented Independent Power & Signals to Sensors • Arranged Axially Independent Power in EFI • Defined Fault Tolerant Signals between IDPU and BAU • Relocated SST Electronics into IDPU for Radiation Protection See Probe presentation for more risk reductions

36. Summary • Summary Proven Processes are In Place Management, Systems Engineering, Quality Assurance Cost is Reasonable Compares to Prior Missions, On-Budget thru Phases A/B Schedule is Consistent with Previous Projects HESSI, Polar, Cluster Risks are Being Actively Addressed by Project Historically Successful in Risk Management, Actively Retiring Risks