1 / 40

FGS Status Report Partners workshop May 2009

JWST-PRES-012903. FGS Status Report Partners workshop May 2009. Presentation by: TF PI – René Doyon (U de Mtl) Project Manager – Karl Saad (CSA). Presentation Overview. Achievements since Last Partner’s Workshop 2. Project risks - Top 5 risks and mitigation plan Project Issues

talli
Download Presentation

FGS Status Report Partners workshop May 2009

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. JWST-PRES-012903 FGS Status ReportPartners workshopMay 2009 Presentation by: TF PI – René Doyon (U de Mtl) Project Manager – Karl Saad (CSA) Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  2. Presentation Overview • Achievements since Last Partner’s Workshop • 2. Project risks • - Top 5 risks and mitigation plan • Project Issues • Schedule status • - Schedule overview • - critical path • - Contingency • Science portion • TFI • Guider • 5. Conclusion/summary Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  3. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • Start of ETU integration activities • ETU Guider ETU – TFI Mass Dummies Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  4. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • Start of ETU integration activities (continued) • ETU Hardware – procurement • Optical Assembly harnesses from IMP received at COM DEV • Some transitional harnesses from NASA received Trial fit of TFI baffles Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  5. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • 1st iteration of Cryo Pupil Alignment test • Encountered safety issues with the test set-up – these were corrected. • Results over temperature were not sufficiently accurate to definitively determine pupil shear. • Thermal strap stiffness identified as significant source of fixture distortion during temperature excursion to cryo. Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  6. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • Mechanisms – Fine Focus • Design was reviewed & changed to address negative stress margin in flexible coupling (connecting link) • Confirmed by testing • Initial Characterization complete • Included cryogenic testing and low level random vibration testing in both park and no-park positions. • Parking preload removed from design. • Mirror twist induced by parking preload was relatively high (>1 arc min). Mirror shall now be parked at nominal focus. Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  7. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • Flight Software Development • Provided ID and ACQ mode interim build (aka Build 3 interim); • Successful prototyping of Etalon Control characterization algorithm with EM ECE and P0 Etalon; • Held successful Build 3 Final Design Review, covering: • TFI Functionality and interface with ISIM FSW; • Guider fault management and updates. • Completed coding of Build 3 and started HW/SW integration testing • ETU – Electronics • Started Detector & ASIC sub-assembly integration & testing • Captured electrical baseline measurements • Etalon CDR • All RIDs(RFAs) closed. Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  8. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • PFM Activities • MRR #1 held January 29, 2009 • KMs and Bench assembly • KMs and Bench received from LHM • KMs successfully proof-load tested • Optical bench at COM DEV PFM KM proof loading test PFM Optical bench at UCC for cleaning Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  9. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • PFM Activities (continued) • PFM Pick-Off Mirror (POM) design is unchanged from ETU POM. • Delivered to specification from Corning Netoptics • Cryo WFE test scheduled for June, 2009 • PFM Guider TMA in performance testing: • PFM acceptance vibration test • Passed, WFE shift was less than 10nm over each field PFM Pick-Off Mirrior PFM Guider TMA under test Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  10. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • PFM Activities (continued) • Dual Filter Wheel (DW) Mechanism • Life Test Unit (LTU) Geared motor testing at cryo completed. • Wheel assembly tests successfully performed under ambient • Coarse Focus Mechanism – LTU • Assembly and integration on-going • PFM Detector selection • All testing of SCA level FGS detectors has been completed. • FGS is left with 4 units to meet its need of 3 detectors (2 guider & 1 TFI) plus one spare. • A Flight Model FPA manufacturing readiness review was at Teledyne. • Go ahead has been given to proceed with F016 as Detector PFM Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  11. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • Ground Support Equipment • HITIF (Horizontal Integration Tool Interface Frame) • Contract award end April and MRR held 13 May 09 • OGSE received and post delivery checks and alignment performed As designed HITIF concept Removal of OGSE from its shipping container Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  12. Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop • Ground Support Equipment • FGS Electronics Simulator • FGSES Sim #1 and #2 delivered to ISIM cert lab • COM DEV cryovac facilities – procured one additional chamber for schedule risk mitigation FGSES Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  13. Project Risks Consequence Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  14. Project Risks - Top 5 - Mitigation • Flight ASIC performance vs interim ASICs • Risk description • Potential differences between flight and interim ASICs • Knowledge of integration techniques • Lack of documentation / ITAR issues / IRCD definition • Looking at building more robustness into FGS electronics design • Getting quantitative agreement on the key ASIC interfaces. • Monitor closely evolution of flight ASIC versus F2 ASIC / Direct support from ISIM • Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Mar 2010 • Overall project schedule contingency • Risk Description: • ASIC & Detector deliveries late • Early into the ETU I&T phase – technical risks • Aggressive stands on critical path activities • Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Nov 2010 Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  15. Project Risks - Top 5 - Mitigation • Integration & Testing of Detector subassembly (characterization) • Risk description: • Directly linked to flight ASIC risk above • Detector potential difference between ETU and Flight unit • use F2 ASICs to test ASIC/Detector combination to characterize system sensitivity to ASIC dependence. • Risk timeframe: Sep 2009 to Jan 2010 • Detector fail to meet specifications • Risk description – as per title • Implemented more QA oversight • Considering additional lot • Support from ISIM in reviewing test data from Teledyne • Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Jan 2010 Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  16. Project Risks - Top 5 - Mitigation • Flight Detector Delivery to FGS • Risk description • Deliver from Teledyne – continuous delays from Teledyne on delivery dates • Monitor Teledyne closely • Evaluating the procurement of additional lot (to mitigate low yield) • Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Jan 2010 Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  17. Project Issues under investigation • SIDECAR Control Electronics • Problem of noise in the Detector/ASIC & SCE sub-system • Difficulties with ASIC integration • Recent breakthroughs in noise reduction: • noise significantly reduced in data analysis by including the reference pixels; • stiffening up SCE Vref and VDDA supplies; and • ASIC Bias tuning by Teledyne • Dual Wheel – bearing • Torque levels at cryo are not consistent • Analysis and test results indicate a retainer needs to be redesign Dual Wheel Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  18. Project Issues under investigation • PFM Guider TMA has been through two unsuccessful cryo WFE test cycles: • 1) Unacceptable change in WFE in first cryo run due to settling. • 2)Full test as per procedure was not completed due to GSE issue • Translation stage motor (bearing) failure • However, preliminary WFE data indicated that the change was much less than test 1 • Plan is to fix the translation stage and retest. Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  19. Project Schedule Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  20. Project Schedule – Critical Path & Contingency • For ETU: (January 12, 2010) • Detector Assembly • FFM – 1 week from critical path • EU and repeat of the Cryo Pupil Alignment – 2 weeks from critical path • For PFM (September 29, 2010) • No overlap of ETU & PFM activities at test facilities • DW – 5 weeks from critical path • Flat Field and Wave Cal Optics – 6 week from critical path Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  21. Project Schedule – Critical Path & Contingency • Schedule Contingency • ETU • ETU PSR date: 12 Jan 2010 • 5 week (PSR + Shipment* – 26 Feb 2010 NASA Need date) • PFM • PFM PSR date: 29 Sep 2010 • 6 weeks (PSR + Shipment* – 30 Nov 2010 NASA Need date) • (assuming 7 days delivery delay) Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  22. Science Portion Science Guider & TFI By Rene Doyon Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  23. FPA selection status • One device (F16) was chosen as flight spare. • Three remaining detector candidates: F21, F22 & F27 • F22 has a lot of hot pixels (high dark current) but may be suitable for the guider. Evaluation is underway. • F27 is our best detector (good QE, low read noise & dark current). Would be the natural choice for TFI but its very good blue response makes it very attractive for the guider too. Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  24. Predicted Flight coating performance Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  25. Predicted Transmittance • 25 Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  26. Maximum Wavelength Shift vs Phase Requirement Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  27. Performance at 1.50 µm Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  28. BARR Filter prototypes • 4 prototype filters have been successfully manufactured: F157, F226, F245, F481) • The roll-off (slope) within spec: <0.025 for F481, < 0.02 for others • Peak transmission within spec: Absolute T≥85% within 80% of the bandwidth at the 90% relative to peak points. • Out-of-band blocking: : well below 10-4 • Ready to proceed to the flight production Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  29. BARR Filter prototype – short λ Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  30. Barr filter – long λ Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  31. Out-of-band Blocking < 0.01% Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  32. PSF movie (1.55-1.75m) obtained with a short wavelength etalon prototype FT  ghost Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  33. Contrast curve before and after speckle suppression Speckle noise is reduced by more than a factor 10. Still preliminary but very encouraging results. Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  34. Laboratory PSF subtraction performance Raw PSF After subtraction Subtraction from two adjacent wavelengths fake Companion 10000 fainter added Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  35. Slope is: 0.012 mas / nm NEA = 3.02 + (WFE-105)*0.012 For WFE = 225 nm, NEA = 4.5 mas Guider: NEA changes with OTE WFE Nominal (5x5 px) centroiding precision and read noise. By John Hutchings Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  36. Model Guider:NEA vs signal from lab data By John Hutchings Heavy line is model for similar centroid window and noise, flight centroid algorithm Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  37. Signal 900e, 1.5 microns Signal 5000e, 3.2 microns Guider: CNL measured from lab dataSystematic centroid offsets from pixel-sampled data X-direction cuts through different places within detector pixel This will be corrected for in reporting guider centroids 2 mas Verification of modelled performance, plus pixel-to-pixel non-uniformities, ongoing By John Hutchings Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  38. Guider signal depends on the detector selected Guide star signal mostly at short wavelengths Estimates for the presently-considered PFM and flight detectors By John Hutchings Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  39. Image with 8x8 and 16x16 centroid boxes superposed ~15 mag Guiding on primary segment images during primary mirror alignment These are results for PSFs from individual primary mirror segments in the early stages of focus and alignment. Little difference between G0 and M5 guide star types. NEA 8-20 mas required for this stage of the process. Will require an isolated guide star of 15 mag or brighter. Some images will be very non-circular. By John Hutchings Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

  40. Conclusion Main challenges • ASIC-Detector integration • Detector Delivery to FGS • ASIC delivery to FGS • Teledyne cost overruns • Mechanism – Dual Wheel bearing issues • Overall schedule contingency • The project is in ETU phase, having started subassembly testing • This is the phase under which we will encounter most of our technical risks • Aggressive risk and scope management will be key for project success. • The way forward will necessitate mutual support between FGS and NASA on the ASIC and detector front – which is occurring already Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

More Related