THEMIS Confirmation Assessment Project Overview Peter R Harvey

THEMIS Confirmation Assessment Project Overview Peter R. Harvey University of California - Berkeley THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 1 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Overview Project Assessment • Organization – – • Management Processes – – • Development, Maintenance, Key Features, Changes, Metrics Modeling, Descopes, Incentives Past Performance, Phase A/B Performance Risk – • Labor, Facilities Cost – – – • Development, Maintenance, Key Features, Performance Metrics Resources – • Management, Systems Engineering, Performance Assurance, IV&V Communications Scheduling – • Structure & Team Composition, Roles and Responsibilities Work Breakdown Structure, Key Personnel Plans, Top Level Risks, Risk Retirements Summary THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 2 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Organization Top Level Organization Chart Explorers Office Frank Snow, Mission Mgr U. C. Berkeley KSC Vassilis Angelopoulos, PI Peter Harvey, PM Tammy Harrington, Mission Integ Mgr Swales Aerospace Mike Cully U. Colo/LASP Bob Ergun CETP Alain Roux GSFC/GNCD Karen Richon TU-BS Uli Auster Univ of Calgary Eric Donovan Univ of Alberta J. Samson IWF Werner Magnes THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR UCLA Chris Russell THEMIS Organization Chart Subcontracts/Agreements Phases BCD 3 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Organizational Roles and Responsibilities THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 4 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Organization Work Breakdown Structure THEMIS Project 1. Management, Science, Systems Eng. 2. Space Segment Development 1. 1 Management 2. 1 Instruments 1. 2 Science 2. 2 Spacecraft 1. 3 Systems Engineering 3. Ground Segment Development 3. 1 Mission Operations Center 3. 2 Science Operations Center 4. Mission Ops & Data Analysis 5. Education & Public Outreach 4. 1 Mission Operations 4. 2 Data Analysis 3. 3 Ground Based Observatories THEMIS Work Breakdown Structure THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 5 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Organization Management, Systems Engineering, Science Management, Science and Systems Engineering Program Management Peter Harvey Management Support K. Harps Finances M. Larson Purchasing M. Giordano Documentation D. Meilhan Scheduling A. Shutkin Administration Facility Support J. Cooks Contracts J. Keenan Purchasing G. Davis Accounting J. Williams Travel J. Jones Personnel UCB Sponsored Projects D. Weldon Contracting THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR Systems Engineering Science V. Angelopoulos Ellen Taylor Electrical Ellen Taylor Mechanical /Thermal Paul Turin Chris Smith EMC/ESC/MAG Robert Snare (UCLA) Quality & Safety Ron Jackson Science Support Bonnell, John Carlson, Chuck Delory, Gregory Frey, Harald Hull, Art Larson, Davin Lin, Robert Mende, Steven Moreau, Thomas Mozer, Forrest Parks, George Peticolas, Laura Phan, Tai Temerin, Michael Parts Jorg Fischer 6 THEMIS WBS 1. 0 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Organization Instrument Development Instruments Instrument Data Processor Unit (IDPU) Electric Field Instrument (EFI) Robert Abiad Peter Berg Heath Bersch Dorothy Gordon Frank Harvey Selda Heavner Jim Lewis Jeanine Potts Chris Scholz Kathy Walden Forrest Mozer John Bonnell Greg Delory Art Hull Bill Donakowski Greg Dalton Robert Duck Mark Pankow Dan Schickele Stu Harris Hilary Richard Electro. Static Analyser (ESA) Charles Carlson M. Marckwardt Bill Elliott Ron Herman Solid State Telescope (SST) Fluxgate Mag (FGM) Robert Lin Davin Larson Ron Canario Robert Lee T. Moreau TUBS/IWF Uli Auster K. H. Glassmeier W. Magnes Mag Booms Search Coil Mag (SCM) CETP Alain Roux Bertran de la Porte Olivier Le Contel Christophe Coillot Abdel Bouabdellah Instrument I&T Rick Sterling LASP Robert Ergun Aref Nammari Ken Stevens Jim Westfall Hari Dharan Y. Kim Tien Tan Bill Tyler THEMIS WBS 2. 1 THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 7 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Organization Ground Systems Development Ground Segment Mission Ops Science Ops (Mission Planning) Manfred Bester Mark Lewis Tim Quinn Sabine Frey Tai Phan John Bonnell Laura Peticolas GSFC/GCND David Sibeck Mark Beckman Bob De. Fazio David Folta Rick Harman Ground Based Observatories All Sky Imagers Stephen Mende Stu Harris Steve Geller Harald Frey Ground Magnetometers Fielding & Operation (UC&UA) UCLA Chris Russell Joe Means Dave Pierce UC Eric Donovan UA J. Samson THEMIS WBS 3 THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 8 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Key Personnel Experience of Key Personnel THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 9 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Processes Management Responsibilities § § § § § Staffing and Facilities, Training and Certification Subcontract Generation and Tracking Schedule Generation and Tracking Budget Generation and Tracking Cost. v. Schedule Compliance Risk Identification, Risk Tracking, Risk Actions Descope Identification, Cost Evaluation, Descope Actions Trade Studies Identification, Evaluation, Change Implementation Action Item Generation, Distribution and Tracking Technical & Financial Report Generation THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 10 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Processes Systems Engineering Responsibilities § § § Requirements Identification and Formalization Design Coordination, Studies (FTA, FMEA, etc) Technical Review Coordination, Informal and Formal ICD Generation Configuration Control Verification Plan Development Design Compliance Operations Plan Development Action Item Management Weekly telecons on S/C bus, Instrumentation, Ground Systems Periodic On-site meetings THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 11 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Processes Performance Assurance Responsibilities § § § Assurance Requirements Identification Performance Assurance Implementation Plan Subcontractor Assurance Plan Reviews System Safety Support Supplier On-Site Inspections of Facilities and Procedures Parts and Materials Research, Selection Parts Qualification, Procurement incl. Common Buy Program Verification Planning Inspections and Test Verifications Failure Report Management Weekly telecons on S/C bus, Instrumentation, Ground Systems Periodic On-site meetings THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 12 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Processes Independent Verification and Validation Extensive Internal Review of Essential Software • Bus Avionics Unit: Telecom, Bus Control, Minimal Autonomy • IDPU : Instrument Control, Data Storage, Calculations • Operations: Re. Use of GSFC-supplied software Self Assessment using IV&V Metrics • Loss of One Probe Yielded Consequence of Insignificant-Marginal • Small Software Size Yielded Likelihood of 29 -30 • Information Provided to IV&V for Cost Estimate/Concurrence Cost Assumptions • Full IV&V Funding Included in Budget • Assume IV&V Works with Available Documentation and Schedule MOU for Initial Assessment is in Place THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 13 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Processes Team Communications Day-to-Day • Email List Server • FTP sites for documents • Conferencing Weekly Meetings/Telecons • • Status of Space & Ground Eng Change Notices Cost and Schedule Risks Monthly Meetings and Reports • • Comprehensive Report Integrating All Internal Status All Development Team Leads Provide Narratives Swales Narrative, Long-Lead and Milestone Schedules, Costs Integrated Reports Available on the THEMIS website THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 14 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Schedule Management Bottom Up Development • • Followed Concept Developer-Generated Schedule Maintenance • • Developers Report to Their Schedule Weekly 3 Full-Time Schedulers at Mission, Project and Probe Levels Provides Status to Project Management & Mission Manager Critical Path Analyses are Provided in the Next Section THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 15 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Schedule Key Features Instrument Development • • • EM Instrument I/F Testing with EM Probe I/F Integrate Instrument Complement at UCB Prior to S/C Integration Instrument Complement F 1 Tested First Followed by Pairs All Instrument Complements are Complete before S/C I&T Begins Instrument I&T Team Will Be Focusing Upon S/C I&T Added Some Facilities for Qualifying Instruments in Parallel Spacecraft Development • • Integration and Test of Probe 1 Completed Prior to Probes 2 -5 Sufficient Manpower and Equipment for Parallel I&T Ground Development • • Development and Deployment of 5 GBOs 2 in 1 Q 05 Development and Deployment of all 20 GBO’s in 1 Q 06 THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 16 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Schedule Relevant Prior Schedule Performance FAST Instruments (EFI, ESA, MAG, IDPU) • Hopped in Front of SWAS • Delivered Complement on Time POLAR / CLUSTER I & II (EFI) • Polar EFI Delivered 8 months ahead of time • Cluster EFW I & II Delivered > 45 Flight Units to WEC in time. HESSI (Management, IDPU) • Phase B to JPL Environmental Tests (Est. 23 mo, Act. 23. 2 mo) • Re-Confirmation to VAFB Delivery (Est. 6 mo, Act 6. 3 mo) EO-1 (S/C Management) • S/C Bus (w Hyperion) delivered 6/99 on time • Swap with IMAGE, Red Team directives, ALERT, etc Delayed 11 m THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 17 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Schedule Metrics Milestone Comparisons to HESSI Sufficient Definition • Task Count ~ 1425 Slack • • • Instruments have 4 -8 months slack to Earliest I&T with Probes Instruments have 6 -9 months slack to Expected I&T with Probes Integrated Probes/Probe Carrier have 3 months to LV Integration THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 18 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Resources THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 19 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Resources SSL Projects STEREO Personnel Not Available; MMS Now Starting Up SNAP and MMS Projects Will Help Offload Personnel THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 20 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Resources Facilities Chamber Availability at UCB/SSL • • • Numerous Tanks of Varying Sizes & Types One New Chamber Needed for THEMIS One Calibration Chamber Needs Parts TV Plan Design • • 2 Component-Level TV Cycles 6 Instrument Level TV Cycles Chamber Usage During Relevant Performance Periods THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 21 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Management Bottom Up Development • • Followed Schedule Development Developers Submitted Detailed Requirements Generated Level 3 Budgets by Month Iterated with Developers to Understand Costs Removed Overlapping Efforts between WBS Generated a Final Master Cost Generated Comparison Data from Prior Projects Reviewed and Approved by THEMIS Board of Directors, SPO, UCOP Budget Maintenance • • UCB Financial Data & Subcontractor Reports Matched to Budget Project Management Comparison of Cost v Schedule Non-Compliances Get Management Attention Workarounds include Work Reduction, Addition Support, Re. Organization THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 22 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Key Features Instrument Development • • • Integrate & Test at UCB Using Mostly Existing Facilities Simplified Instrument Interfacing Automated Instrument Testing at S/C Lowers Extended Travel Efforts Spacecraft Development • • Simplified Probe Carrier Design Relaxed Probe Attitude Requirements and Simplified Design Complexity Left on the Ground Use of Existing Environmental Facilities at GSFC Ground Development • • Leverage HESSI & FAST Operations Incorporate GSFC/GNCD Software and Expertise THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 23 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Changes from Proposal Growth in Management, Systems Engineering • Compared to HESSI Actual Costs Scaled to Development Task • Now Matches within 0. 2% Growth in Probe/Probe Carrier/LV • Most Probe/PC Activity Directly Accountable to Risk Retirements • Modest Growth (5. 6%) in Defining Specific Suppliers, Spares, etc. THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 24 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Reasonableness THEMIS Phase B/C/D Costs Compare Well to HESSI Actual Costs • THEMIS Instruments Require Less Development than HESSI THEMIS Phase E Mission Operations Suitably Larger • Handling 5 Probes Instead of 1; Cost Estimated at 3 x THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 25 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Instrument Mass. v. Cost Modeling • • Categorized Each Component by its Complexity Computed Mass of Flight & Spare Units • • Grass Roots Budget is 6% Over Model So Budget is Sufficient High TRLs from 6. 75 to 7. 5 THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 26 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Available Descope Options Modest Requirements Allow Flexibility in Instrumentation Power, Mass, Cost Savings are Available THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 27 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Incentive Plan (UCB-Swales Contract tbd) • • 2% for Probes/Probe Carrier Delivery on Time 2% for Probes On-Orbit Performance – • • • Delta-V, Communication, Power, Thermal Requirements met Each is $750 K Paid Only if Reserve is Available Balance of Schedule and Performance Exactly as Used on HESSI Rationale • • On Schedule Delivery Incentive Compares to ~ 20 day Program Delay On-Orbit Performance Helps Keep Focus on Quality and Support in L&EO Used Successfully on HESSI Industry Standard Practice THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 28 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Performance Relevant Prior Cost Performance POLAR / CLUSTER I & II (EFI) • • • Polar EFI Delivered at 37% Under Budget Cluster EFW I Delivered 40% Under Budget. Cluster EFW II Was Built using Reserve from EFW I HESSI (Management, IDPU) • • Completed Spacecraft & Ground Systems at 8% Under Budget Re-Built Spacecraft 39% Under Budget EO-1 (S/C Management) • • S/C Bus Delivered on Fixed Price NASA Directed Additional Effort – – – Safe Hold & GPS (GFE) changes Hyperion Addition Launch Delays (IMAGE Swap) WARP (GFE) Rework Red Team Directed Risk Mitigations THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 29 HESSI UCB Actual Cost v Plan UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Performance Phase A/B Cost Performance v Budget Average Compliance Between 3 -6% below budget (Red v Blue) THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 30 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Performance Phase A/B Cost Performance by WBS THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 31 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Cost Performance Phase A/B Cost Performance by WBS THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 32 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Risk Management UCB/Swales Management Taking Lowest Risk Approach Overall • Assessments Generated by Knowledgeable Engineering • Tradeoffs Discussed with PI in Weekly Telecons Risk Management Plan Status • Swales Risk Management Plan in place • UCB/SSL Mission Operations RMP in place • THEMIS Project RMP in development – GSFC-UCB meeting scheduled Dec 9 -10 THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 33 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Risk Programmatic Risks Probe Development Cost • • Ø Ø Largest Development Effort (2. 5 x instrumentation) Limited options for Suppliers Given Low Mass/Power Reqmts Counting on Swales/GSFC/UCB Experience in Small S/C UCB FOT Involvement Could Help Lower I&T Costs Instrument Schedule • • Ø Ø Historically Instrumenters Are Understaffed at Start and Play Catch Up Heritage Often Means You Can’t Get the Parts Anymore Project Management Direct Involvement in Staffing (30 FTE of 35 planned) Coordinate Parts Early (Currently Revision 20) Design Flaws • Components Qualified Prior to Probe 1 I&T – Could Be 6 Wrong Ø ETU Probe-to-Instrument Interface Testing Prior to Flight Build Up THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 34 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Risk Technical Risks Top Phase A Retirements Taken to Retire Risk • Simplified Probe Carrier, Launch Sequence • Simplified Probe Maneuvering, Safing • Scheduled Early Testing to Detect Design Flaws • Dropped New Technology HCI and Micro-Gyro Top Phase B Retirements to Reduce Risk (in Instruments) • Added Redundant Actuators on Mag and AXBs • Implemented Independent Power & Signals to Sensors • Arranged Axially Independent Power in EFI • Defined Fault Tolerant Signals between IDPU and BAU • Relocated SST Electronics into IDPU for Radiation Protection See Probe presentation for more risk reductions THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 35 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003

Summary Proven Processes are In Place Management, Systems Engineering, Quality Assurance Cost is Reasonable Compares to Prior Missions, On-Budget thru Phases A/B Schedule is Consistent with Previous Projects HESSI, Polar, Cluster Risks are Being Actively Addressed by Project Historically Successful in Risk Management, Actively Retiring Risks THEMIS Mission PDR/CAR 36 UCB, November 12 -14, 2003