ISOC GLAST LAT Project ISOC Status Review June

ISOC GLAST LAT Project ISOC Status Review June 3, 2004 1

ISOC GLAST LAT Project Overview – We have developed an organization and staffing plan in concert with the SLAC management. • ISOC buildup started, rapid ramp up over next year – We have completed initial work on an operations architecture. – We have made good progress in addressing peer review RFAs – Substantial work remains before CDR but we believe we now understand the scope and will be ready by 7/15. 2

ISOC GLAST LAT Project LAT/ISOC Organization Post Launch SSAC NASA GLAST Project 4. 1 Instrument Ops Advisory Board H/W subsystem leads, key Technical Advisors from throughout collaboration Science Analysis Coordination Committee SAC head, Analysis leads, ISOC rep, SAS head PI: P. Michelson Inst Sci: S. Ritz 4. 1. B ISOC Manager W. Craig (Acting) 4. 1. B. 1 4. 1. B. 2 LAT Ops Facility (LOF) Sci. Ops Group (SOG) 4. 1. B. 4 Resources Only Science Analysis Center 4. 1. B. 3 Sci. Analysis SW (SAS) R. Dubois Software Calib Flt S/w & Testbed Pipeline Operations Optimization Pipeline Config. Anayl Tools Collab Computing 3

ISOC GLAST LAT Project Staffing • Rob Cameron has accepted the ISOC manager position, so there will (finally) be a permanent ISOC manager in place in August. • Craig will be responsible for a successful CDR and will keep Cameron updated throughout. – Several month transition period planned • Steve Culp has accepted S/W developer position and will start within a week. He will be responsible for fleshing out the architecture and first database implementations. 4

ISOC GLAST LAT Project Staffing Profiles Excludes SAS and SAC. 5

GLAST LAT Project ISOC Staffing Profiles (with SAS/SAC) Does not include Stanford, UCSC, NRL, GSFC or collaboration members. 6

ISOC GLAST LAT Project Architecture • Drivers – Minimize V&V burden and total cost – Maintain all science capabilities – Simplify interfaces and allow early testing • Recognized that neither of the previously considered options were particularly attractive – ITOS/Commercial packages don’t accommodate complexities of science data – Homegrown system doesn’t have heritage, not ready in time to make project timelines. • Most of additional code needed duplicates that in existing packages – Studied hybrid solutions 7

ISOC GLAST LAT Project ITOS/Astro RT Trade • In favor of either – Both Astro. RT and ITOS would provide basic instrument health and safety functions • Telemetry display • EU conversion • Limit checking and monitoring • Trending • Command telemetry database access – Both products have learnable interfaces and scripting • Astro. RT uses Lab. View for display and Perl scripts for automation • ITOS displays are reportedly easy to create, uses STOL for input 8

ISOC GLAST LAT Project ITOS/Astro RT Trade • Against either – Requires use of ITOS or Astro-RT specific interfaces and scripting – Both have ITAR issues – Limitations are not fully understood • Believe limitations will not affect monitoring and trending of housekeeping data – only science and instrument diagnostics 9

ISOC GLAST LAT Project ITOS/Astro RT Trade • In favor of Astro. RT – LAT is using Astro. RT for LAT flight software testing • Against Astro. RT – Does not handle character strings – not sure if that’s an issue for us (it is with GBM) – Commercial product costing $$$ upfront and for support throughout program life – Probably unable to alter Astro. RT code • In favor of ITOS – MOC and GBM will be using ITOS – May be able to alter ITOS code or have changes made • Against ITOS – None that don’t also exist for Astro. RT 10

ISOC GLAST LAT Project Proposed ISOC S/W Architecture No req’ts on MOC that require LATOPS layer All State of Health requirements satisfied within ITOS MOC/GSSC ITOS Cmd DB SOH trending and display Cm ta Da d LATTE Ops LATOPS Science data/performance trending Relational database interaction Register load generation Pipeline/SAS interactions 11

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA responses # RFA Summary Requestor Actionee Comment 1 a. Need ISOC Management Plan & Approach b. ISOC Documentation Set R. Schweiss W. Craig Plan draft and list of ISOC documents on http: //wwwglast. slac. stanford. edu/ioc/ 2 Need overall functional block diagram illustrating the functional capabilities and data flow during various phases R. Schweiss L. Bator Draft response – slides attached 3 Risk Analysis R. Schweiss W. Craig Draft response – slides attached 4 Reschedule ISOC CDR M. Rackley C. Young D. Lung Done. CDR scheduled for 8/4/04 5 Incomplete Level III requirements for LOF and SOG M. Rackley L. Bator Drafts on http: //wwwglast. slac. stanford. edu/ioc/ 6 Staffing plan and profile M. Rackley C. Young W. Craig D. Lung Staffing plan and profile presented, RFA response pending 7 Define the ISOC reports for internal use and external use M. Rackley L. Bator Response complete – slides attached 8 The ISOC does not yet know what system it is using to process Observatory HSK data or perform the commanding M. Rackley L. Bator Architecture presented, RFA response pending 9 Describe lesson learned & approach M. Rackley W. Craig Response complete – slides attached 12

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA responses, cont’d # RFA Summary Requestor Actionee Comment 10 ISOC verification does not involve early opportunities to validate/test using LAT instrument M. Rackley N. Johnson L. Bator See RFA #2, also pending architecture approval 11 Verify LAT modes M. Davis L. Bator Draft response – slides attached 12 Understand the number of writes to EEPROM C. Young L. Bator Response submitted 13 ISOC detailed development schedule K. Lehtonen D. Lung Pending architecture approval 14 Enter a more formal agreement with SLAC management on required data storage and processing requirements N. Johnson W. Craig Response completed – slides attached 15 ISOC organization structure & communications N. Johnson W. Craig D. Lung Organization presented, RFA response pending 16 Define mechanism for ISOC requirements being placed on I&T and SAS N. Johnson W. Craig Pending architecture approval 17 Define LOF/SOG tools R. Corbet L. Bator J. Panetta Draft response – slides attached 18 Specify plans and requirements for automation of Ops software R. Corbet M. Rackley L. Bator J. Panetta Draft response for 1 st part, awaiting S. Culp for 2 nd 19 Specify plans and requirements for Ops SW to be of sufficient robustness R. Corbet L. Bator J. Panetta ECD 6/15/04 – S. Culp 20 Specify what other ground system elements will be involved in LAT operations R. Corbet L. Bator D. Lung ECD 7/5/04 - working group on contingency plans 13

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA 2 – ISOC Functional Block Diagram • RFA 2 Specific Request: – Need an overall functional block diagram illustrating the functional capabilities and a data flow diagram showing the various data flows, with the differences among the I&T (prelaunch w/GSE) phase, L&EO phase, and nominal on-orbit phase configurations specified – Diagrams for each phase might be needed 14

GLAST LAT Project ISOC Dataflow During I&T Single Tower Testing • • • Obtain data during I&T EM 2 testing Goal is to read houskeeping data off flat file produced by Online Database development and maintenance is shared between I&T and ISOC 15

GLAST LAT Project ISOC Dataflow During I&T Multi-Tower Testing • • Obtain data during I&T testing Increase in ISOC functionality 16

GLAST LAT Project ISOC Dataflow with Test. Bed - Direct to SIU • • • Direct interface with SIU for CCSDS command telemetry packets Obtain testbed simulated data via SIU Demonstration of ISOC capability increases as functionality is developed 17

GLAST LAT Project ISOC Dataflow with Test. Bed - With SIIS • • • Interface with SIIS/Astro. RT for telemetry packets and commanding Obtain testbed simulated data via SIU and SIIS Demonstration of ISOC capability increases as functionality is developed 18

GLAST LAT Project ISOC Dataflow During GRTs, L&EO and On-orbit • • Shows full ISOC capability for L&EO and On-orbit GRTs will test capabilities as they are available 19

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA 3 - ISOC Risk Analysis • Process – Discussion with I&T personnel on risks – Internal discussion performed in concert with RFA’s from peer review – Review and approval by ISOC stakeholders • Follow-up – Entry into LAT risk management database by 06/01/04 – Weekly tracking, updating by ISOC management 20

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 3 – ISOC Risk Analysis Number Date Rank Originator Description Mitigation ISOC-0001 5/15/04 1 B. Craig ISOC lacks accepted architecture and plan for software implementation. Trade study between possible front ends to be completed by 6/15/04. Hires into s/w architecture position. ISOC-0002 5/15/04 3 B. Craig No response to PDR RFAs Schedule and track RFA’s weekly. ISOC-0003 5/17/04 2 B. Craig Inadequate staffing plan for ISOC. Draft staffing plan in progress, to be released by 06/01 First req issued an offer out to highest priority position. ISOC-0004 5/21/04 4 B. Craig No facility location identified for ISOC Long-term solution identified, short term space to be requested from SLAC management. 21

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 3 – ISOC Risk Analysis Number Date Rank Originator Description Mitigation ISOC-0005 5/21/04 2 B. Craig No requirements levied on I&T and Flt S/W subsystems Mechanism in place with I&T, pending with Flt S/W. Implement these only after architecture is defined and accepted. ISOC-0006 5/21/04 1 B. Craig ISOC will be unable to hold schedule due to staffing delays and unscoped work Definition of work plan follows architecture development. If needed additional support will be requested from LAT management. 22

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 7 – ISOC Reports • Specific Request • Define and document the types of reports that will be generated by the ISOC for both internal use and for use by external systems (like the MOC and GSSC) • Response • Reports will be documented in the Operations Product ICD (external reports) and LAT Ops Plan (internal-only reports) 23

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 7 – ISOC Reports • LAT status and planning • • • Reported daily (TBR) Summary of LAT health status Limit violations Alerts received Current LAT configuration Commanding and any other special activities that occurred Mission planning outlook for near term (time period TBD) Generated by LOF with automatic and manual inputs Published to web server 24

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 7 – ISOC Reports • LAT performance • • • Reported daily (TBR) Quick look science data Performance metrics (details TBD) Generated by SOG Published to web server Level 0 data transmission report • • Data transmission metrics (details TBD) Automatically generated and sent to MOC following receipt of Level 0 data 25

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 7 – ISOC Reports • Data Trending • Housekeeping data • • Derived science quantities • • • Environmental data (temp, voltages, currents) Trigger efficiency Total count rate Bright source monitoring Includes statistical analysis Generated automatically daily/weekly/monthly Published to the web 26

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA 9 - ISOC Lessons Learned • • Issue – No writeup on lessons learned from visits to other instrument/mission operations center Resolution – Members of the ad hoc planning group for the definition of the LAT IOC (now ISOC) made visits to the operations centers for GPB (launched April, 2004; Stanford Univ. , Tom Langenstein & Brett Stroozas), RHESSI (launched 2002; Berkeley Space Sciences Lab. , David Smith & Manfred Bester), and Chandra (launched in 1999; MIT & Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dan Schwartz & Paul Plucinsky) – Each of these operations centers integrates mission operations with science (instrument) operations, and so they are not directly comparable to the ISOC in terms of complexity or staffing. (The operations center for RHESSI includes the ground station. ) • LAT ISOC can learn from others but there are no direct models. 27

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 9 - Lessons Learned – The science operations center for GP-B is co-located with the science team at Stanford. The GP-B data also will be distributed widely to collaborating institutions, but the colocation at Stanford was deliberate to maximize the interaction with the SOC on data issues. • Colocation important to maximize science. – The staffing for RHESSI operations is especially spare. The facility itself is also used to run operations for FAST and CHIPS and the routine operations, like scheduling of contacts and pipeline processing, are automated. Testbeds (simulators for the instrument computers) are maintained, and have been found vital for understanding anomalies as well as for testing flight software updates. • Testbeds important for flight software updates. 28

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 9 - Lessons Learned – The Chandra Operations Control Center has a room with about 4 consoles for the ACIS instrument team to monitor and command the instruments. The ACIS team has developed an impressive, flexible facility for trend analysis. The importance of a flexible system that does not require deciding in advance what needs to be monitored routinely was stressed to us. The ground-based calibration data are still actively used, >4 years into the mission. Colocation of the operations (mission and instrument) and the ACIS instrument team has been important, at least in terms of increased efficiency. Instrument team members (like the PI) at Penn State can feel out of the loop or behind the times. • Colocation important to keep all science members in the loop. 29

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 11 – LAT Modes • Specific Request: – LAT Operations Team and Spectrum Astro should work together to verify if any interactions between LAT modes and spacecraft modes need to occur. For example, if a LAT mode change requires the spacecraft to change spacecraft mode and/or configuration • Response: – SC modes are understood and accommodate the LAT modes as designed 30

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 11 – LAT Modes, cont’d Mission Modes SC Mode LAT Mode Launch S-Band rcvr/xmit On battery power Early Orbit Inertial capture S-Band rcvr/xmit Sun point with solar arrays tracking Inertial point, zenith point, or maneuver Ku-Band xmit, S-Band rcvr/xmit Solar arrays tracking Sky Survey Zenith point Ku-Band xmit, S-Band rcvr/xmit Solar arrays tracking Science Mode Pointed and Repointed Inertial point, maneuver Ku-Band xmit, S-Band rcvr/xmit Solar arrays tracking Science Mode Safemode Inertial capture, sun point S-Band rcvr/xmit Solar arrays fixed Re-Entry Cruise, delta-V S-Band rcvr/xmit Solar arrays tracking Engineering Off Survival Engineering Calibration SAA Hardware Survival Off 31

ISOC GLAST LAT Project LAT Modes, cont’d 32

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA-12: Number of EEPROM Writes • Specific Request – Understand the number of writes to EEPROM on LAT from all sources • Reason – EEPROMs have a limited number of write cycles before they become unreliable • Response – Not an issue due to use of True. Flash File System overlay (full description is on RFA response, available on ISOC web page) 33

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA 14 - ISOC Data Storage • Issue – No agreement with SLAC management on how data storage and processing requirements will be funded. • Resolution – Estimate of processing and data storage requirements performed for SAS by R. Du. Bois. Cost determined and built into ISOC outyear funding plan and accepted by SLAC Director of Research – Database costs still being evaluated by database working group but now expected to be minimal or covered completely by SLAC central computing services due to small size (~ 1 Tb) of database. 34

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 14 - Monthly Costs 2005 2006 2007 2008 35

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA 17 – Define LOF/SOG Tools • Specific Request: – The tools needed to run the LOF/SOG need to be specified • Which HK and science parameters will be monitored and in what way? • What actions would be taken based on the results seen with these tools? – How does the ISOC team know from a design perspective that the collection of the described I&T tools will function in the operations environment as an integrated system? • Reason/Comment: – The overall requirements on the ISOC have been given – Detailed plans for which software components/libraries such as Python will be used were given – However, lists of which software tools are required to achieve the ISOC’s requirements are needed 36

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 17 - Response • Which HK and science parameters will be monitored and in what way? – HK parameters are defined in LAT-TD-02905 – Routinely monitored science parameters are included within the HK data as Low Rate Science • Use of high rate science data is being developed by SVAC and will be further developed by SOG – Limits and use of HK data for monitoring are TBD • What actions would be taken based on the results seen with these tools? – Calibration activities are in development in the SVAC – Contingency actions are TBD 37

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA 17 - Response, cont’d • How does the ISOC team know from a design perspective that the collection of the described I&T tools will function in the operations environment as an integrated system? – Development and testing of ISOC tools is in conjunction with I&T • Lists of which software tools are required to achieve the ISOC’s requirements are needed – The following slides detail the ISOC software tools 38

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools 1 Data Transport and Management 1. 1 File retrieval, transmission, and management (internet) X SLAC SCS and Fastcopy 1. 2 Archive data files X SLAC SCS 1. 3 Parse data into database X 1. 3. 1 Convert housekeeping data into Engineering Units To be Written Existing Other Exists with LATTE ITOS OPUS ISOC Tools X 1. 4 Data integrity checks X 1. 5 Science data reconstruction X 1. 6 Calibration tracking X 39

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d To be Written Electronic logbook Existing Other 2. 1 Exists with LATTE Operations Tools ITOS 2 OPUS ISOC Tools X 2. 1. 1 Reporting X X 2. 1. 2 Command history X X 2. 2 Database management 2. 2. 1 Command telemetry 2. 2. 2 Science and calibration 2. 3 Archive management X X SLAC SCS 40

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d To be Written Existing Other Exists with LATTE ITOS OPUS ISOC Tools 3 Instrument Health (LOF) 3. 1 Real time housekeeping telemetry display X 3. 2 Historical data trending display X X 3. 3 Data monitoring and alarming systems X X 3. 3. 1 Autonomous reporting X 4 Instrument Diagnostic Tools 4. 1 Diagnostic data display and analysis 4. 2 Memory dump parsing FSW 4. 3 Testbed management and operation Elec X 41

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d 5. 2 Offline calibration 5. 3 Online calibration X To be Written Visualization tools Existing Other 5. 1 Exists with LATTE Instrument Performance (SOG) ITOS 5 OPUS ISOC Tools X SVAC tools X X 42

ISOC GLAST LAT Project RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d 6. 1. 1 To be Written Command procedure generation and management Existing Other 6. 1 Exists with LATTE LAT Commanding Tools ITOS 6 OPUS ISOC Tools X Instrument file generation FSW 6. 1. 1. 1 File management X 6. 1. 1. 2 File validation and verification X 6. 1. 1. 3 File translation to ITOS 6. 1. 2 Telecommand generation Perl script X X 6. 2 Procedure verification and validation on testbed X 6. 3 Procedure transmission tools X 6. 3. 1 Command wrapper generation (for GSSC) 6. 3. 2 Command load transfer to GSSC X Fastcopy 43

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA-18: ISOC Operations automation • Specific Request – Specify plans and requirements for automation of operations software – Describe the software design for how the automation needs will be met • Response – Draft of the plans and requirements has been completed – Software design will commence when ISOC software engineer is hired 44

GLAST LAT Project ISOC RFA-18: ISOC Operations automation • Data retrieval from MOC • OPUS: – Archiving raw data – Dispatch science data to SOG – Dispatch housekeeping to LOF • LOF automated processing – Housekeeping: limit checks, warnings – Science data: raw data quality – Automated reporting of above (web/paging/email) • Trending: – Weekly/monthly characterization of data • Calibration tracking & computation • External agency alert retrieval (i. e. , SEC, NIST) 45

ISOC GLAST LAT Project Roadmap to CDR • Primary tasks – 1) Scenario definition • Work with FSW and I&T for all operational modes (BC, LB, SC) July 1 • Detailed early orbit plans (BC, LB) July 15 – 2) Contingency operations analysis • Define possible actions by subsystem (BC, LB) July 7 – 3) Draft Instrument Ops Section of Mission Plan (LB, SC, who at GSFC? ) July 15 – 4) Update requirements documents to reflect architecture (SC, LB) July 15 46

ISOC GLAST LAT Project CDR Prep Schedule • • • July 8 th July 21 st July 26 th July 29 th August 4 th August 18 th Revisit roadmap Laydown Slides to GSFC Dry Run ISOC Peer Level CDR 47