Particles and Fields Package PFP System Summary for

Particles and Fields Package (PFP) System Summary for Peer Review 2011 May 9 -11 Dave Curtis PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 1

Peer Review Goals • This review shall concentrate on detailed designs, test results, fabrication issues, and test plans – Programmatic issues deferred to Instrument CDR • We will concentrate on designs that have changed since PDR – Designs that have not changed will get little coverage, and may be relegated to backup material • Not all engineering model (EM) testing has been completed for all instruments at this time – We will list remaining EM assembly and test plans • Generally FM build will not start till EM testing is complete – We will indicate where we plan to proceed at risk prior to test completion • We will also list changes that we plan to make between EM and Flight designs PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 2

The PF Package SWEA Solar Wind Ion Analyzer (SWIA) – SSL LPW (2) Solar Wind Electron Analyzer (SWEA) – CESR / SSL LPW-EUV MAG (2) SWIA SEP (2) STATIC Langmuir Probe and Waves (LPW) – LASP / SSL LPW/Extreme Ultra-Violet (LPW-EUV) – LASP Solar Energetic Particle Detector (SEP) – SSL Magnetometer (MAG) – GSFC Supra-Thermal and Thermal Ion Composition (STATIC) SSL PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 3

MAVEN PFP Org Chart MAVEN Project PI: Bruce Jakosky (LASP) PM: David Mitchell (GSFC) MAVEN Deputy PI, PFP PI Robert Lin PFP Science Team: Jim Mc. Fadden Dave Mitchell Davin Larson Jasper Halekas Greg Delory Janet Luhmann Jack Connerney (GSFC) Robert Ergun (LASP) PFDPU EE: Gordon ME: Donakowski FSW: Harvey STATIC Sci: Mc. Fadden EE: Sterling ME: Dalton PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 PF Package Manager SPO , EH&S, Purchasing, Financial David Curtis Management Team: Financial: Harps Schedule: Meilhan Systems: EE: Curtis ME: Turin SWIA Sci: Halekas EE: Taylor ME: Dalton SWEA Sci: Mitchell EE: Taylor ME: Turin SWEA (IRAP) Sci: Mazelle UCB Support: Mission Assurance & Safety Jorg Fischer SEP Sci: Larson EE: Hatch ME: Glaser LPW (LASP) Sci: Ergun LPW (SSL) Sci: Delory ME: Mc. Cauley EE: Sterling MAG (GSFC) Sci: Connerney 4

PFP Block Diagram 10 cm PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 5

PFP Instruments (2) STATIC SWEA SWIA PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 6

PFP Instruments (1) EUV SEP MAG PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 PFDPU 7

PFP Instruments (3) - LPW Booms Removable Whip Pre-deploy PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 Postdeploy 8

PFP Interconnect PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 9

Top Level Requirements • Mission (Level 2) Requirements Document – MAVEN-PM-RQMT-0005 – PFP Level 3 Requirements MAVEN-PFIS-RQMT-0016 – Instrument (Level 4) specifications • Mission Assurance Requirements – MAVEN-PM-RQMT-0006 – PFP Mission Assurance Implementation Plan, MAVEN_PF_QA_002 • Software Management Plan – MAVEN-SYS-PLAN-0020 – PFP Software Development Plan MAVEN_PF_SYS_008 – PFP Software Requirements Spec MAVEN_PF_FSW_002 • Environmental Requirements Document – MAVEN-SYS-RQMT-0010 • Spacecraft to PFP ICD – MAVEN-SC-ICD-0007 – ITAR controlled • Many documents on SSL web site: – ftp: //apollo. ssl. berkeley. edu/pub/MAVEN/ PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 10

Resources Mass Telemetry Power PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 11

MAVEN Schedule • • Instrument CDR May 23 -25 2011 Mission CDR July 11 -15 2011 PFP Package I&T starts April 2012 PFP PER May 2012 PFP PSR, Delivery to ATLO November 2012 Launch November 2013 Arrive at Mars September 2014 End on nominal mission October 2015 PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 12

PFP Verification • PFP Verification Plan MAVEN_PF_SYS_023 • PFP Verification Matrix, MAVEN_PF_SYS_033 • Maps requirements to verification tests – FRD, ERD, ICD Requirements • Most Performance Requirements in the FRD verified during Instrument Calibrations • ERD requirements mostly verified during Environmental Tests • ICD requirements mostly verified during package CPT and flight software acceptance tests PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 13

PFP Integration • PFP I&T Plan MAVEN_PF_SYS_022 • Bring together all of the PFP Flight Units after instrument calibrations but before qualification starts • A similar integration of Engineering Models is taking place now • A big difference between EM and FM PFP Integration is Flight Software – Build 1 for EM has very little instrument data processing – Build 2 for FM will have all code – Build 2 will have been tested on EM prior to loading on FM • FM PFP Integration will take place in a clean room with Contamination & Planetary protection controls – Class 100 K or better – Purged with LN 2 boil-off – Dust cover will remain on as much as possible • Will perform a baseline CPT test of the full package – Package CPT includes all Instrument CPTs, modified as required – Covers all functions and modes of operation to the extent possible • Will perform a self compatibility test of the package – Verify instruments do not interact unexpectedly PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 14

PFP I&T Flow PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 15

Qualification • Following PFP I&T there will be a Pre-Environmental Review – Verify assembly and test is complete – Verify test plans are in place and meet requirements • First Qualification test is EMC – – Performed at the package level Uses flight and flight-like harnesses RE, RS, CE, CS, bonding/isolation, etc. At a local subcontractor • Following EMC instruments will be de-integrated and go through remaining environments at the component level – No disassembly other than harness demating – Magnetics, Vibration, Thermal Vac at ERD levels • Following instrument qualification the PFP shall be reassembled for a final CPT at SSL • A pre-ship review shall be help before shipping to ATLO PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 16

PFP Qualification Flow PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 17

SSL Integration and Test Facilities Cleanroom (with 5 THEMIS probes) Magnetics Screening Station PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 One of 3 calibration chambers at SSL One of 5 Thermal Vac chambers at SSL 18

EMC Tests • Levels per ERD: • Radiated Emissions – RE 102 • Radiated Susceptibility – RS 103 • Conducted Emissions – CE 101/102 • Conducted Susceptibility – CS 101, CS 115 PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 19

Magnetics Test • Measure the powered off dipole – Target is 25 m. A-m 2 • Measure power on/off and transient and AC fields • Use SSL Magnetics screening facility PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 20

Dynamics • Structural Loads by Analysis • Pressure Profile by rule-ofthumb • Self-shock – Cover open, deploy • Spacecraft shock deferred to ATLO • Acoustics Deferred to ATLO – Except STATIC • Protoflight Random Vibration – ERD levels – Local contractor PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 21

Thermal Vac • SSL Facilities – 5 chambers available with various configurations • Thermal Balance depending on results of thermal analysis – Current plan calls for SWEA, STATIC Thermal Balance, TBR • 8 cycles per ERD and GEVS to predicts/AFT +/-10 C – CPT hot and cold first cycle; LPT thereafter • Nominally separate due to different environments – But may consider combining some tests if ranges compatible • Last cycle followed by bakeout with TQCM to verify outgassing PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 22

Thermal Vac Cycling PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 23

ATLO • Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations • Takes place at Lockheed Martin in Denver and Kennedy Space Center in Florida • SWEA, SWIA, STATIC will be removed after spacecraft environments and returned to SSL for a functional test in vacuum to verify no damage occurred during spacecraft environments PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 24

Fault Protection Dave Curtis PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 25

Fault protection • PFP has a number of faults that have to be protected against: – SEP viewing Sun can overheat the detector – EUV viewing RAM direction at periapsis can damage the filter – SWEA/SWIA/STATIC can suffer high voltage discharge which could damage the instrument if operated at too high a density (possible during deep dips) • There is a document which describes the Fault Management Description Document, MAVEN_PF_SYS_020. • SEP, EUV are safed by closing attenuator/window • HV is safed by powering off HV PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 26

Fault Protection • First line of defense is the SOC – Will generate time-tagged commands to safe the instruments based on predicted orbit and attitude – Will generate instrument commands – Tends to be conservative due to predict uncertainty • Second line of defense is spacecraft zone alert system – Spacecraft tracks orientation – Spacecraft tracks accelerometers and infers density – Spacecraft automatically generates ‘zone alerts’ telling PFP flight software when we are in safe or unsafe conditions for the various constraints. – Flight software responds to zone alerts by safing instruments • If unable to safe, will ask spacecraft to power PFP off. PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 27

Fault Protection • PFP power off is safe – Even if powered off unexpectedly – HV is off – PFDPU contains a circuit which closes SEP and EUV doors when operational power is shut off • The ground based system and the zone alert system are in series – both must agree that it is safe HV to power on or aperture to open • Note that flight software considers all ground based operation of HV and apertures equivalent and only considers the zone alert system as fault protection PFP pre-CDR Peer Review, May 9 -11 2011 28