GLAST Large Area Telescope: I & T Input to Monthly Technical/Cost/Schedule Review 05/24/05

1. Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope GLAST Large Area Telescope: I & T Input to Monthly Technical/Cost/Schedule Review 05/24/05 Elliott Bloom SU-SLAC Subsystem Manager Ken Fouts SU-SLAC Subsystem Engineering Manager elliott@slac.stanford.edu, kfouts@slac.stanford.edu 650-926-2469 650-926-2553

2. Last Month's Accomplishments (1 of 3) • Management • Supported Observatory I&T Planning Meeting at GD. • Procedure Status • 65 of 68 I&T documents in review/approval cycle. • Tracking hardware shortages for LAT integration. • Current shortages: • GRID HTR PWR HARNESS ASSY, LAT-DS-05057 • GRID HTR TEMP SENSOR HARNESS ASSY, LAT-DS-03662 • IFCT • Validated EGSE in the grid with EM TEM’s prior to connection to flight HW. • Completed Two-Tower Test • Completed I&T Receiving Tests on TKR 1, 2 and 3. • Completed Bay 5 Tower (TKR/TEM/CAL) installation • Completed Bay 1 TKR Installation • Installed and crimped Grid thermisters and thermocouples.

3. Last Month's Accomplishments (2 of 3) • Online • E-logbook • Added ability to search shift logbook with Google Desktop • Implementing requested improvements • Beyond 2 towers • Housekeeping multi-pen strip chart GUI • Parallelizing INT scripts • Attempting to move some LATTE 5 features into production (e.g., HSK, LATc) • Continued supported of CAL, TKR, TRG, INT and test suites. • Supported data taking, trigger and E2E script development. • Problem assessment and fixes are a large part of online workload • NCRs, support for clean room operations, support of subsystems scripts. • CCB activity and JIRA maintenance

4. Last Month's Accomplishments (3 of 3) • SVAC • Successful turn around for calibration of two tower data • ready before data taking started • Joint effort TKR/CAL/SAS/SVAC • Offline data processing system under CCB and working well • Single tower data analysis • No show stoppers yet • Generated several special test requests • Good start with two tower data • Data is being analyzed in details • No major problem identified so far

5. Power Outage Impact on I&T • Emergency Generator allowed work to continue in B33 • TKR 3 was installed on Thursday • Room 103 circuit breaker/panel fault was resolved by turning off non-essential power. • The current plan to resolve the B33 Room 103 power issue is as follows: • SEM will procure several 150A breakers to replace the current main breaker in the power box as time (and testing) permits. • Several temporary power drops will be added to the office area on a separate circuit so that computers can be powered up and desk lamps can be used in the desk and board area outside of the clean room. • SEM will verify the power panel arc flash calculations, write and execute the procedures to open the panel for inspection and load measurements in the current state (only 6 out of 42 breakers on). • At the completion of TVAC on Wednesday, SEM would begin work to replace the main breaker and determine the panel loads in more detail as the remaining breakers are turned back on. • 4 hour shutdown is planned for Wednesday. • Our goal is to safely bring the building back to 100% with minimal impact to building users.

6. I&T MGSE/Grid Activities Tower A & B in the Grid Mass simulators installed EM PDU and GASU EGSE harness routing EGSE shelf and cable service loop Harness service loop

7. Current Status As of May 23rd Month NCR Opened I&T NCRs by Month Open/Closed Status Previous Month

8. Procedure Status • 68 documents total • 65 latest versions submitted for sign-off • 59 are released

9. Procedure Status (1 of 6) – Management

10. Procedure Status (4 of 6) – IFCT Electrical

11. Upcoming I&T Events • Two tower test (Complete) • Receiving tests for TKR 2 (Complete 5/13) • Receiving tests for TKR 1 (Complete 5/11) • Receiving tests for TKR 3 (Complete 5/16) • Receive TEM/TPS 1 and 2 ECD 5/9 (Complete 5/19) • TKR 2 in Bay 5 (Complete 5/17) • TKR 1 in Bay 1 (Complete 5/19) • CAL/TEM Installation in Bay 5 ECD 5/24 • CAL/TEM Installation in Bay 1 ECD 5/25 • 4 Tower Tests ECD 6/7 • Receive TEM/TPS 3 and 4 ECD 5/16 5/26 • Receive TKR 4 ECD 6/9

12. I&T Detail Schedule (1 of 4)

13. I&T Detail Schedule (2 of 4)

14. I&T Detail Schedule (3 of 4)

15. I&T Detail Schedule (4 of 4)

16. I&T 6 Month Look Ahead (1 of 2)

17. I&T 6 Month Look Ahead (2 of 2)

18. Issues & Concerns ISSUES • Availability of flight assembly hardware. • Shortages identified by I&T and being worked with Subsystems. • Flight Cables CONCERNS • Continued support for NCR closure. • Resolution of Room 103 power issue. • TPS rework and replacement, availability for future tower installations. • Delivery dates for third layer ELX boxes and TKR. • LATTE 5.0 ready Oct. 1 for use in LAT Functional testing due to start 10/14. E2E tests start 11/1.

19. Closed Under investigation Investigation has not started “Issues” for single tower tests: offline analysis • CAL_HI and CAL_LO fired without any crystal hits • Most likely due to direct deposition in diodes • CAL_HI trigger fired without high energy deposition • Most likely due to direct deposition in diodes • Discrepancy between TKR occupancy on top GTRC’s between DATA and MC in electronics space (generated STRXX) • Most likely due to the differences in particle composition between DATA and MC • Maybe a small fraction could be from CC FIFO buffers filled up in data (this is a feature not a bug) • Discrepancy between Data and MC for TKR dead channel list • Partially disconnected channels are not simulated • Discrepancy calculated and measured event size (generated STR3) • Miscalculations based on wrong assumptions for event multiplicities • Discrepancy between GEM and TriggerAlg for trigger types • Analysis software (TriggeAlg) is not a realistic representation of GEM since it does not address threshold/calibration differences • Discrepancy in trigger rates for 1,5,10 and 20 KHz runs, underestimated for low rates and overestimated for high rates at a few % level • Rates from generator were not known to better than a few %, so it is consistent with measurements • overestimation had to do with deadtime since some events did not make into the stream • Compared events that triggered BOTH the TKR and EXT pulse generator running at 20KHz with events that trigger TKR only, former had lower hit multiplicity (generated STR8) • Reason was that when a trigger window was opened (on raising edge) by EXT the TKR signal was already on for some time which means some of the hits already died away by the time we looked at. Expect this to be more frequent a higher rates • Distribution for TKR trigger arrival times was not flat • Needed to select EXT trigger to open the window and then make the same plot and naturally the spike disappears • There is consistently 10-15% more triggers seen during the 5 and 10kHz runs than expected as measured by the exponential fit to the delta event time register of the GEM. • TKR only triggers is around 85% (TBR) of the time when the muon telescope triggers

20. The Oscar goes to…

21. Two Tower Tests Baseline Run : Flight Configuration Calibrated Energy Spectrum Expected to peak at 100 MeV Reconstructed positions There are 234664 triggers There are 0 events with Trigger Parity errors There are 0 events with Packet errors There are 20 events with TEM errors Time of first trigger: Thu May 5 20:48:41 2005 (GMT) Time of last trigger: Thu May 5 21:48:42 2005 (GMT) Duration: 3601 seconds Rate: 82 hz 79% single track events 14% two-track events

22. Time Between Events: Baseline Run As expected 26.5 us !

23. Two Tower Tests Baseline Run : Reconstructed Z Direction From Anders… Maximum trigger acceptance is reduced and is consistent with expectations based on geometrical calculations Tracks passing through 1 tower only Tracks passing through both towers Tracks coming from top of the tower Cos q = -1 • Selection cuts: • Single track events • Ratio between predicted and measured MIP > 0.7 and < 1.3

24. Two Tower Tests Baseline Run : Sum of Crystal Energies in the CAL Energy calibrations work within a tower and across towers Tracks passing through 1 tower only Energy in MeV Tracks passing through both towers • Selection cuts: • Single track events • Ratio between predicted and measured MIP > 0.7 and < 1.3 Energy in MeV

25. Two Tower Tests Baseline Run : MC vs DATA Tower 0 Tower 4 From Dave…

26. Science Data vs. Housekeeping Data From Xin… Temperature Temperature Hit multiplicity Hit multiplicity Tower 0, bottom layer Tower 0, top layer Time Time Temperature Temperature Hit multiplicity Hit multiplicity Tower 4, bottom layer Tower 4, top layer Time Time

27. Priorities for Data Analysis for 2 towers • We proposed to the Collaboration to analyze these runs first • We are identifying names to be attached to the list below • 1/1 – baseline • Check trigger types and rates, event sizes , raw and recon distributions for tracks within one tower and across towers • Monte Carlo comparison • 2/1,2/2 – baseline and change PDU PS values • First time we have a Power Distribution Unit. Could it be a source of noise? If so, can the raw distributions tells us? • 2/6, 2/7 – read TKR from Left or Right only • Cable lengths are different between odd and even numbered towers, but the DAQ takes that into account. Let’s check it by comparing raw and recon distributions from both towers. Select events that triggered at the center and at the edges • 4/1 to 4/4 – baseline with pulse generator @ 1,5,10,20 kHz • Muon distributions should not be affected by high rates from pulse generator • Do we understand the deadtime? • B2 – nominal settings TEM diagnostics enabled • It is just like 1/1 but with TEM diagnostics ON • B10 – CAL HE muon gain, 4 range readout, TEM diagnostics enabled • Calibrate TOT • measure dead strips • Calibrate edges of crystals • B13 – CAL HE muon gain, 4 range readout, Zero Suppression disabled • Check pedestals in the CAL • Trend pedestals, muon peaks, log ratios, what else?

28. Wrapping up… • Good start with two tower data • Runs finished this morning • Will distribute data to Collaboration today • More to come… • Join us in the Instrument Analysis Weekly Meetings • Friday 8 am PDT (VRVS) • Still looking for more people… • Our web site http://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/IntegrationTest/SVAC/Instrument_Analysis/Instrument_Analysis.html

29. Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope Cost/Schedule Reports for Presentation April 2005 Month End 4.1.9 Integration & Test

30. Level 3 Milestone Count

31. Level 3 Milestone List

32. Milestone Variance Explanation • Schedule Impact • None • Cost Impact • None • Corrective Action • Not required

33. Cost Report

34. Cost Variance Explanation • Why overrun/underrun? • Currently on plan • What will be done to correct? • Stay the course

35. FTE Report (DOE/NASA-funded only)

36. FTE Variance Explanation • Why overrun/underrun? • Small overrun due to use of additional SLAC services for machining • What is the impact? • None • What will be done to correct? • N/A