1 / 13

EUSO Development Philosophy

EUSO Development Philosophy. EUSO General Meeting Max Planck Institute for Physics Munich, November the 20th 2003. Introduction. Alenia contribution, in support of Instrument System responsibility, covered, during the phase A study, the following aspects:

maree
Download Presentation

EUSO Development Philosophy

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. EUSODevelopment Philosophy EUSO General Meeting Max Planck Institute for Physics Munich, November the 20th 2003

  2. Introduction • Alenia contribution, in support of Instrument System responsibility, covered, during the phase A study, the following aspects: • Development approach and associated model philosophy • System Verification Tasks outline • Provisions of guidelines for the various equipment, sub-assemblies and subsystems, as provided by the Scientific Consortium, called for sake of comprehension: Customer Furnished Equipment (CFE) • The presentation addresses, therefore: • Development Philosophy • Guidelines for Equipment/Sub- assemblies/Subsystems • Open Areas to be covered in the following Program Phases • Schedule Outline

  3. Development Philosophy - General • The Development philosophy for the EUSO Instrument has as sustaining pillars: • an Assembly, Integration and Verification Program • and a Model Philosophy • The objectives of the AIV Program are primarily to: • qualify the design, • ensure that the products are in agreement with the qualified design and free from workmanship defects and acceptable for use, • verify that the overall system (including tools, procedures and resources) will be able to fulfil mission requirements, • achieve the delivery in due time of the flight model, • minimise the overall development costs.

  4. Development Philosophy - General • The methods of verifications are the standard ones, i.e.: • test, analysis, review of design and inspection. Note (1) • The stages of the verification process encompass the development, qualification and acceptance phases. • The levels will be: • Equipment, • Subsystem and/or Sub-assembly (e.g. structure, harness etc…), • EUSO Integrated Instrument, • EUSO Integrated Payload, i.e.: EUSO Instrument + Mission/Launch Specific Items. Note (1): The test methodology will be the main method of verification and will be used when analytical techniques cannot provide reliable results.

  5. Development Philosophy - Instrument level • The AIV Campaign is based primarily on: • an Instrument STM • an Instrument PFM. • Three major verification steps are preliminarily identified: • Instrument thermo-mechanical qualification on the Instrument Structural Thermal Model (STM) • Instrument functional qualification on the Instrument Protoflight Model (PFM) • Integrated Payload qualification on the EUSO Payload PFM

  6. Development Philosophy - Guidelines for Subsystems • Equipment/Subsystem Developers (CFE) are to provide their development plans in order to harmonise and make them compatible with the overall EUSO Instrument development. • As far as models and associated development phases are concerned, the following approach is proposed: • B.B./D.M./T.M. can be used to develop technology and demonstrate design adequacy • E.M. (Either Engineering or Electrical Models) to demonstrate Items functionality and interface adequacy. • PFM to qualify the items. It will be accepted also an EQM/QM and FM approach, if necessary. • Developers are requested to provide an STM to the EUSO Instrument Integrator. In certain cases, STMs can be used to achieve qualification of design, e.g. primary structure.

  7. Development Philosophy - Overall Logic

  8. Development Philosophy OC = Operational Configuration (Platform/Instrument)

  9. Development Philosophy LC = Launch Configuration (Platform/Carrier/Instrument)

  10. Development Philosophy - Instrument level • EUSO Instrument • STM • Overall structural and thermal model (inclusive of thermo-structural dummies of avionics, optics, EUSO P/L PDGF and PMCAS): static, modal survey, TV/TB, including cycling of LID cover/mechanism opening/closure in extreme environmental conditions , physical properties, alignment before and after environmental tests • PFM • Refurbishment of STM structure • Complete functional verification, there including calibration • Proof test • Physical properties • EMC conducted tests • Grounding/bonding • EUSO Payload • System level on STM Model: • Vibro-Acoustic test • System level on Protoflight Model: • Physical properties, including I/F requirements by Inspection (OC/LC); • Radiated EMC test (OC); • TB/TV (OC); • Vibro-Acoustic test (OC); • Modal Survey test (LC); • Functional, Performance tests (OC/LC) • LC = Launch Configuration (Platform/Carrier/Instrument) • OC = Operational Configuration (Platform/Instrument)

  11. Open Areas Instrument Review • EUSO Instrument development approach is generic and lacks visibility on equipment/subsystems specific developments. • It is a specific activity for the next Program Phases. However some improvements can be done with the co-operation of the various developers in the near term. Mission Review • System Electrical Model missing • Noted. Introduction to be assessed and is possible in the next Program Phases. • EMC tests at Instrument and PSE (Payload Service Electronic) level missing • Noted. It is introduced • Proof Test of Instrument PFM missing • Point taken. If CFRP confirmed for the primary structure, proof test will be executed on the PFM Structure Subsystem.

  12. Open Areas Mission Review (cont’d) • Modal Survey Test at PFM Launch configuration missing • It will be introduced • Instrument PFM must be a new structure, not a refurbishment from STM • Noted. It depends on several aspects. A trade-off will be carried out in the future Program phases. • End-to-End verification to be performed with dedicated SCOE. • Point will be covered in the future.

  13. 1 ST YEAR 2ND YEAR 3RD YEAR 4TH YEAR 5TH YEAR 6TH YEAR Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Preliminary Design Review STM Detailed Design Review Critical Design Review PFM Instrument Level Phase B Phase C/D PFM additional AIV tasks (jointly with P/L) Qualification Review / Flight Acceptance Review System level PFM AIV process based on Instrument and Payload joint PFM AIV Assy and subsystem level qualification models. For ALS o refurbishment of STM structure; process based on responsibility HW: o lenses installation, alignment and o acoustic test o LID Assy reliability test and functional tests calibration (optics responsible in o thermal vacuum (extreme temperature conditions) optics facility) o EMC tests (radiated) o overall structural and thermal model (inclusive of o completion of PFM integration in o functional tests thermo-structural dummies of avionics, optics, Alenia Spazio facilities o alignments and light tightness checks EUSO P/L PDGF and PMCAS, etc...) tests o complete functional verification before and after environmental tests - static (protoflight level) o phisical properties (mass, inertia, o grounding/bonding - modal cog, fit checks etc...) - thermal vacuum (solar fluxes simulation) in o EMC tests (conducted) open / close configuration; o alignments and light tightness checks - physical properties (mass, cog, fit checks etc...) before shipping for integration on - alignments and light tightness checks before and EUSO P/L after environmental tests o grounding/bonding EUSO INSTRUMENT - SCHEDULE OUTLINE LIST IS INDICATIVE

More Related