THEMIS Mission Confirmation Readiness Feb 4 2004 THEMIS

THEMIS Mission Confirmation Readiness Feb 4 2004 THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

AGENDA 8: 30 Introduction F. Snow, GSFC 8: 40 Science Overview V. Angelopolous, UCB 9: 00 Mission Overview P. Harvey, UCB 10: 00 SMO Assessment M. Goans, SRO 10: 30 RAO Cost Estimate 11: 00 Discussion THEMIS MCRR C. Fryer, SMO GPMC GSFC 2/4/2004

THEMIS Science Overview Dr. Vassilis Angelopolous Principal Investigator Space Sciences Laboratory University of California, Berkeley THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

TIME HISTORY OF EVENTS AND MACROSCALE INTERACTIONS DURING SUBSTORMS (THEMIS) SCIENCE GOALS: Primary: “How do substorms operate? ” – One of the oldest and most important questions in Geophysics – A turning point in our understanding of the dynamic magnetosphere First bonus science: “What accelerates storm-time ‘killer’ electrons? ” RESOLVING THE PHYSICS OF ONSET AND EVOLUTION OF SUBSTORMS – A significant contribution to space weather science Principal Investigator Vassilis Angelopoulos, UCB Second bonus science: EPO Lead Nahide Craig, UCB “What controls efficiency of solar wind – magnetosphere coupling? ” – Provides global context of Solar Wind – Magnetosphere interaction THEMIS MCRR Program Manager Peter Harvey, UCB Industrial Partner SWALES Aerospace GSFC 2/4/2004

Science Overview THEMIS determines where and how substorms are triggered. Substorms are… …important to NASA: • Fundamental mode of magnetospheric circulation • SEC Roadmap: “Understand energy, mass and flux transport in Geospace” • Important for geo-storms have societal implications. • SEC Roadmap: “How does solar variability affect society? ” • Rich in new types of basic space plasma physics. • NRC, National Academy: A strategic question in space physics (1995). Aurora • Auroral eruptions are recurrent (~3 -6 hrs) THEMIS MCRR Current disruption Reconnection • Magnetospheric substorms are responsible for auroral eruptions. GSFC 2/4/2004

Events Occuring During a Substorm Auroral Eruption Current Disruption Model time Event 0 sec Current Disruption 30 sec Auroral Eruption 60 sec Reconnection THEMIS MCRR Reconnection ? Reconnection Model time Event 0 sec Reconnection 90 sec Current Disruption 120 sec Auroral Eruption GSFC 2/4/2004

Mission Elements Probe conjunctions along Sun-Earth line recur once per 4 days over North America. Ground based observatories completely cover North American sector; can determine auroral breakup within 1 -5 s … … while THEMIS’s space-based probes determine onset of Current Disruption and Reconnection each within <10 s. : Ground Based Observatory THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Science Objectives THEMIS HAS FOCUSED MINIMUM (TO BASELINE) OBJECTIVES: • Time History of Events… – Auroral breakup (on the ground) – Current Disruption [CD] (2 probes at ~10 RE) – Reconnection [Rx] (2 probes at ~20 -30 RE) … and Macroscale Interactions during >5 (>10) Substorms (Primary): – Current Disruption and Reconnection coupling • Outward motion (1600 km/s) of rarefaction wave • Inward motion of flows (1000 km/s) and Poynting flux. – Ionospheric coupling • Cross-tail current reduction (P 5 u/P 4) vs flows • Field aligned current generation by flow vorticity, pressure gradients (d. P/dz, d. P/dx). – Cross-scale coupling to local modes • Field line resonances (10 RE, 5 min) • Ballooning modes, KH waves (1 RE, 1 min) • Weibel instability, cross-field current instability, kinetic Alfven waves (0. 1 RE, 6 Hz) • Production of storm time Me. V electrons (Secondary) • Control of solar wind-magnetosphere coupling by the bow-shock, magnetosheath and magnetopause (Tertiary) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Probe conjunctions well understood BASELINE: >10 substorms achieved w/ 5 probes in 2 yrs & 50% margin. MINIMUM: >5 substorms achieved in 1 yr w/ 4 probes. – computations include lunar, solar, drag, J 2 terms Actual conjunction times in 1 st year – d. YP 1/2/3/4/5<± 2 RE; d. ZP 3, 4, 5/NS<± 2 RE; d. ZP 1, 2/NS<± 5 RE • Ascent design is optimal for science – maximizes conjunctions, minimizes shadows • … immune to launch insertion errors – small, piece-wise DVs increase placement fidelity • … and immune to probe insertion errors. – Can withstand insertion error of d. V=80 cm/s on any probe THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Mission overview: Fault-tolerant design has constellation and instrument redundancy D 2925 -10 @ CCAS EF Ia EFIs SCM ESA BGS SST FGM Mission I&T Swales Tspin=3 s n io ulat aps Enc unch & la Operations UCB Instrument I&T UCB Ground THEMIS MCRR Probe instruments: ESA: Thermal plasma SST: Super-thermal plasma FGM: Low frequency B-field SCM: High frequency B-field EFI: Low and high frequency E-field GSFC 2/4/2004

Selected instruments built en masse Identical instrumentation provides high science margins and fault tolerance • Instrument redundancy: • Time History of Events – SST-ESA energy overlap – FGM-SCM frequency overlap – P 1/P 2 redundant instrumentation (only directional flux needed in one of two). Instruments required to achieve Primary Mission Objective Each probe has: THEMIS MCRR Macroscale Interactions FGM ESA 2 SSTh (2 heads) SCM 2 EFIa (2 axials) 4 EFIs (4 spin plane) Measurement goals P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 3, 4&5 monitor CD P 1, 2 bracket Rx tres<30 s, d. Y<± 2 RE FGM 2 SSTh FGM ESA 1 SSTh 2 EFIs Track rarefaction wave, inward flows, Poynting with d. B<1 n. T, d. V/V~10% FGM ESA Radial/cross-sheet pressure, velocity and current gradients require d. P/P~ d. V/V ~ d. B/B ~10%, non-MHD FGM ESA 2 EFIs Cross-tail pairs measure FLRs, KH, ballooning on B, V, P @ 10 s and fast modes on Bxyz and Exy @ 6 Hz FGM ESA SCM 4 EFIs 2 EFIa FGM ESA SCM 4 EFIs 2 EFIa GSFC 2/4/2004

Mission profile is robust Pre-Launch (6 hrs) • Bus check-out • Dply mags/check instr. • Orbit place. Total of: • Minor ctrl ops (all): – 22 side-thrustings – 2 inclination changes - 6 side thrustings - 6 reor/fire/reor sequences • Deploy EFI • Fuel consumption, maneuvers and contacts during ascend: validated with GMAN. THEMIS MCRR Re-entry • Minor ctrl ops (Side-thrusts, finish by EOM+9 mo) • Probe dispense Science ops (2 yrs) - 8 side-thrustings • 2 nd stage burn • Spin-up • 3 rd stage burn • Spin-down Check-out & ascend (60 days) • Passive re-entry thereafter (1 -10 yrs) • Checkout • Countdown Launch (25 min) GSFC 2/4/2004

First bonus: What produces storm-time “killer” Me. V electrons? Affect satellites and humans in space ANIK telecommunication satellites lost for days to weeks during space storm Source: – Radially inward diffusion? – Wave acceleration at radiation belt? THEMIS: –Tracks radial motion of electrons • Measures source and diffusion • Frequent crossings –Measures E, B waves locally THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Second bonus: What controls efficiency of solar wind – magnetosphere coupling? Important for solar wind energy transfer in Geospace Need to determine how: – Localized pristine solar wind features… – …interact with magnetosphere THEMIS: – Alignments track evolution of solar wind – Inner probes determine entry type/size THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Mission design meets requirements Mission profile – – – Two year mission design easily met in this high Earth orbit Launch: D 2925 from CCAS (40 min window any day) permits 40% lift margin Simple probe carrier (3 rd stage fixture) w/ release built by an experienced team Science & routine ops and multi-object tracking has ample heritage at UCB Simple RCS, heritage sfw & ground-cmd and GSFC/GNCD support benefits MOC Probe design – Simple, passive thermal design w/ thermostatically controlled backup heaters – Survival at all attitudes under worst shadow conditions – Simple data flow / automated routine science ops minimize cost and risk • Store/Forward 375 Mbit/orbit (256 Mbyte capability permits multi-orbit storage) – Orbit control & knowledge exceed placement rqmts by factor of 10 – Early EMC/ESC mitigation as per heritage practices (e. g. FAST, POLAR) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Active trade studies constantly reduce risk An integrated team of scientists and engineers constantly optimize mission design and resources, reducing risk. Phase A main trade studies: Direct inject with passive PCA reduces schedule and ops risks PCA dispense simplified: improves clearances, reduces risk Increased fuel tank capacity Added solar panels at bottom face ACS solution simplified with micro-gyros replacing accelerometers Connected RCS propulsion pods Phase B main trade studies: Exercised alternate path for SST instrument Tuned Phase A orbit design to reduce differential precession; enhanced 2 nd year science products Changed BAU processor to reduce software complexity motivated by GSFC experience Increased tank size to take full advantage of mass to orbit capability, yet at lower cost Increased thruster size to reduce finite arc inefficiency and Msn Ops complexity Repackaged SST and SCM electronics along with IDPU Removed ESA attenuator (simplified instrument) with minimal effect on bonus science Included redundant actuators and surge protection in instrument designs THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Descope list and science-related risk mitigation factors Can do baseline science even after inadvertent complete instrument failures Re-positioning allows recovery from failure of critical instruments on some probes Graceful degradation results from partial or even full instrument failures – – Instrument frequency and energy range overlaps Complete backup option for EFI radials (need 2 in most probes but have 4) Relaxed measurement requirements (1 n. T absolute is not permitted to drive team, but rather a nicety) Substorms come in wide variety; can still see large ones with degraded instruments Minimum mission can be accomplished with a reduced set of spacecraft requirements – – – THEMIS MCRR EMC and ESC requirements important for baseline but less severe for minimum mission Observation strategy can be tuned to power loss (turn-on/off) and thermal constraints (tip-over/back) Fuel and mass margins for 1 st year (minimum) are 30% larger than for a two year (baseline) mission GSFC 2/4/2004

Minimum mission provides definitive answer to the substorm question. • Simultaneous observations in the key regions P 5 P 4 P 3 P 2 P 1 • Ideal geometries for tens of substorms • Data rates / time resolution exceed requirements • Analysis tools available from Cluster, ISTP, FAST • Experienced co-Is are leaders on both sides of substorm controversy • Minimum mission accomplished within 8 months from nominal launch date THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

THEMIS Mission Overview Peter R. Harvey Project Manager Space Sciences Laboratory University of California, Berkeley THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Science Overview – Purpose To understand the onset and macroscale (1 -10 Re) evolution of magnetospheric substorms. – Capabilities Will provide the first measurements of substorm starting location Will provide the first measurements of substorm evolution – Collaborating Institutions University of California (UCB, UCLA) Swales Aerospace Inc. (SAI) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) University of Colorado (LASP) Technical University of Braunschweig (TU-BS) Institut fur Weltraumforschung der OAW (IWF) CETP THEMIS MCRR CESR University of Calgary University of Alberta NOAA University of Saint Petersburg Tokyo Institute of Technology GSFC 2/4/2004

Mission Overview – Launch Vehicle: Injection: Date: Delta II, Eastern Range 1. 1 x 12 Re, 9 degrees inclination August 2006 ( unrestricted ) – Space Segment Spacecraft: Orbit Period(s): Orientation: 5 Spinning probes with fuel for orbit/attitude adjust 1, 2 and 4 days Ecliptic normal – Ground Segment Observatories: 20 Stations for All Sky Imaging and Mag Field – Operations Phases: Lifetime: THEMIS MCRR L&EO (2 mo), Campaigns (Dec-Mar), De-Orbit 2 years GSFC 2/4/2004

Organization Roles THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

TOP LEVEL ORG CHART? THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR 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 THEMIS WBS 1. 0 GSFC 2/4/2004

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 LASP Robert Ergun Aref Nammari Ken Stevens Jim Westfall 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 Hari Dharan Y. Kim Tien Tan Bill Tyler THEMIS WBS 2. 1 THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

60 days Funded Schedule Reserve Included THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Launch Configuration Dedicated launch accommodated within standard Delta 7925 -10 vehicle configuration and services 10’ Composite Fairing required to accommodate five Probes on the Probe Carrier in the “Wedding Cake” configuration PC stays attached to Delta 3 rd stage after probe dispense Each probe dispense from the PCA is coordinated with but independent of the other probes No single probe anomaly precludes dispense of remaining probes Standard Delta 10 ft. Fairing Static Envelope Probe Carrier Assembly (PCA = 5 Probes + Probe Carrier) on L/V 3712 PAF Star 48 3 rd Stage Probe Carrier Assembly (PCA) on Delta 3 rd Stage THEMIS Launch Configuration THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Probe Bus Design Power positive in all attitudes with instruments off (launch, safe hold modes) Passive thermal design using MLI and thermostatically controlled heaters tolerant of longest shadows (3 hours) – Spin stabilized probes orbit within 13° of ecliptic plane have inherently stable thermal environment S-Band communication system always in view of earth every orbit at nominal attitude. In view for greatest part of orbit in any attitude Passive spin stability achieved in all nominal and off-nominal conditions Monoprop blow down RCS (propulsion) system is self balancing on orbit THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Instrument Payload THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Probe Carrier Design Simple probe carrier utilizes (1) Upper Probe Standard Separation Fitting Center Spool – Machined aluminum structure – Standard heritage payload attach fittings (4) Lower for Probes utilize pyro- actuated clampband Probe Standard – Straight-forward umbilical interconnect Separation Fittings harness – Multi layer insulation blanketing as required Detailed design supported by comprehensive analysis – NASTRAN model used to recover material stresses and fundamental frequencies – Base drive analysis used to verify strength and recover component loads – Preliminary Coupled Loads Analysis completed for our Delta II ELV Probe layout on carrier maximizes static and dynamic clearances – Design is the best balance between deployment clearances and probe structural mass (8) External Struts Main Deck Probe Carrier (PC) PAF Adapter Ring/Tube & Attach to Launch Vehicle First Lateral Mode: 18. 29 Hz First Axial Mode: 48. 27 Hz Probe Carrier Fundamental Natural Frequencies: Displacements Not to Scale THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Probe Separation Design study and analysis results – Deploy sequence of P 1 then P 2 -P 5 simultaneously – 15 rpm nominal PCA spin rate – Probe separation velocity of. 35 m/s Results of evaluating off-nominal conditions – No collisions or close approaches due to combinations of ‘stuck’ Probes, timing errors and tip-off – Reasonable nutation and pointing angles that Probe ACS can easily accommodate – Separation initiation is two fault tolerant Visualization – Used actual output files from ADAMS Split to make screen the animation ADAMS Dispense Model Dynamic Simulation Image Flexibility for tuning deployment later in the design process includes; carrier spin rate, deployment spring stiffness, deployment order, and timing THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Ground System Block Diagram THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

System Margins Resource Not to Exceed (NTE) Current Best Estimate (CBE) Margin Probe Carrier Assembly Dry Mass (kg) 606. 5 1 458. 4 32. 3% 700 574 21. 9% 28. 1 35. 8% 187. 5 2 36. 5% 4. 2 d. B 45. 5% 6. 0 d. B Delta V (m/s) Orbit Average EOL Power 38. 2 (W) RF Link Margin Science Data Storage (MB) 256 - Science Downlink (1024 kbps at perigee) Probe TLM Data Storage 16 - H&S Downlink (4 kbps at apogee) (MB) - Command Uplink (1 kbps at apogee) 11 6. 2 d. B Notes: 1. Probe Carrier Assembly Dry Mass NTE = LV Capability (800 kg) - 5 x Fuel (38. 7 kg) = 606. 5 2. Current Best Estimate 750 Mbits/orbit + 1 day contingency = 1500 Mbits = 187. 5 MB THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Power Generation Power Margin and Current Best Estimate History since PDR – Issues identified after PDR dropped potential power generation capability of baseline designificantly – Solutions have been identified and are being implemented PDR December Current Design EOL Power 42. 6 34. 4 38. 2 CBE 27. 3 30. 2 28. 1 56. 1% 13. 7% 35. 8% Margin THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Power Generation Issues Identified since PDR – Effect of shadowing from EFI Snout and Mag Booms greater than expected – Losses due to Electrostatic Cleanliness (ESC) Implementation (ITO coating and interconnects) greater than anticipated – Cell cosine loss assumptions were more optimistic at PDR than actual data – PDR calculation assumed power would be produced at higher incidence angle than current specification Solutions being implemented – Added cells around EFI snout to mitigate shadowing – Increased total photon collecting area Issue Effect Shadowing -14% ESC -7% Cosine loss -2. 9% Incident angle -5. 7% Workaround Effect Notes Extra cells +5. 1% Conservative 3 strings lost due to Mag Booms, 1 string loss > 60 deg due to EFI Snout. Increased area +9. 4% A number of layouts are being evaluated. Increased area represents most conservative option to date. No mass increase anticipated. GSFC 2/4/2004 THEMIS MCRR

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Schedule Metrics Milestone Comparisons to HESSI Sufficient Definition – 23 Schedules involving 3977 tasks 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 2 months to LV Integration THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Resources THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Resources SSL Projects STEREO Personnel Not Available; MMS Now Starting Up SNAP and MMS Projects Will Help Offload Personnel THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Cost Available Descope Options Modest Requirements Allow Flexibility in Instrumentation Power, Mass, Cost Savings are Available THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR HESSI UCB Actual Cost v Plan GSFC 2/4/2004

Cost Performance Phase A/B Cost Performance v Budget Average Compliance Between 3 -6% below budget (Red v Blue) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

BACKUP SLIDES THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Baseline L 1 Requirements S-1 Substorm Onset Time – Determine substorm onset time and substorm meridian magnetic local time (MLT) using ground ASIs (one per MLT hr) and MAGs (two per MLT hr) with t_res<30 s and d. MLT<1 degree respectively, in an 8 hr geographic local time sector including the US. (M-11, GB-1) S-2 Current Disruption (CD) Onset Time – Determine CD onset time with t_res<30 s, using two near-equatorial (within 2 Re of magnetic equator) probes, near the anticipated current disruption site (~8 -10 Re). CD onset is determined by remote sensing the expansion of the heated plasma via superthermal ion flux measurements at probes within +/-2 Re of the measured substorm meridian and the anticipated altitude of the CD. (M-9, IN. SST-1, IN. SST-4, IN. FGM-1) S-3 Reconnection (Rx) Onset Time – Determine Rx onset time with t_res<30 s, using two near-equatorial (< 5 Re from magnetic equator) probes, bracketing the anticipated Rx site (20 -25 Re). Rx onset is determined by measuring the time of arrival of superthermal ions and electrons from the Rx site, within d. Y=+/-2 Re of the substorm meridian and within <10 Re from the Rx altitude. …. . (M-9, IN. EFI-2, IN. ESA-1, IN. SST-2, IN. SST-3, IN. SST-4, IN. FGM-1) S-4 Simultaneous Observations – Obtain simultaneous observations of: substorm onset and meridian (ground), CD onset and Rx onset for >10 substorms in the prime observation season (September-April). Given an average 3. 75 hr substorm recurrence in the target tail season, a 2 Re width of the substorm meridian, a 1 Re requirement on probe proximity to the substorm meridian (of width 2 Re) and a 20 Re width of the tail in which substorms can occur, this translates to a yield of 1 useful substorm event per 18. 75 hrs of probe alignments, i. e, a requirement of >188 hrs of four-probe alignments within d. Y=+/-2 Re. (M-1, M-12, IN. FGM-1) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

… continued: Baseline L 1 Requirements S-5 Earthward Flows – Track between probes the earthward ion flows (400 km/s) from the Rx site and the tailward moving rarefaction wave in the magnetic field, and ion plasma pressure (motion at 1600 km/s) with sufficient precision (d. V/V=10% or V within 50 km/s whichever is larger, d. B/B=10%, or B within 1 n. T whichever is larger, d. P/P=10%, or P within 0. 1 n. Pa whichever is larger) to ascertain macroscale coupling between current disruption and reconnection site during >10 substorm onsets (>188 hrs of four-probes aligned within d. Y of +-2 Re). (IN. ESA-1, IN. SST-3, IN. FGM-1) S-6 Pressure Gradients – Determine the radial and cross-current-sheet pressure gradients (anticipated d. P/d. R, d. P/d. Z ~0. 1 n. Pa/Re) and ion flow vorticity/deceleration with probe measurement accuracy of 50 km/s/Re, over typical inter-probe conjunctions in d. R and d. Z of 1 Re, each during >10 onsets. The convective component of the ion flow is determined at 8 -10 Re by measurements of the 2 D electric field (spin-plane to within +-30 degrees of ecliptic, with d. E/E=10% or 1 m. V/m accuracy whichever is larger) assuming the plasma approximation at t_res<30 s. (IN. EFI-1, IN. ESA-2, IN. SST-3, IN. FGM-1) S-7 Cross-Current Sheet changes – Determine the cross-current-sheet current change near the current disruption region (+/-2 Re of meridian, +-2 Re of measured current disruption region) at substorm onset from a pair of Z-separated probes using the planar current sheet approximation with relative (interprobe) resolution and interorbit (~12 hrs) stability of 0. 2 n. T. (IN. FGM-1, PB-42, PB-43, PB-44) S-8 non-MHD plasma – Obtain measurements of the Magneto-Hydrodynamic (MHD) and non-MHD parts of the plasma flow through comparisons of ion flow from the ESA detector and Ex. B flow from the electric field instrument, at the probes near the current disruption region, with t_res<10 s. (IN. EFI-1, IN. ESA-1, IN. SST-3, IN. FGM-1) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

… continued: Baseline L 1 Requirements S-9 Cross-Tail Pairs – Determine the presence, amplitude, and wavelength of field-line resonances, Kelvin-Helmholz waves and ballooning waves on cross-tail pairs (d. Y=0. 5 -10 Re) with t_res<10 s measurements of B, P and V for >10 substorm onsets. (IN. ESA-1, IN. SST-3) S-10 Cross-Field Current Instabilities – Determine the presence of cross-field current instabilities (1 -60 Hz), whistlers and other high frequency modes (up to 600 Hz) in 3 D electric and magnetic field data on two individual probes near the current disruption region for >10 substorm events. (IN. EFI-3, IN. ESA-3, IN. SCM-1) S-11 Dayside Science – Determine the nature, extent and cause of magnetopause transient events (on dayside). (IN. ESA-4, IN. SST-6) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Minimum L 1 Requirements (from L 1’s) 4. 1. 2. 1 Substorm Onset Time – Determine substorm onset time and substorm meridian magnetic local time (MLT) using ground MAGs (at least one per MLT hr) with t_res<30 s and d. MLT<6 degrees respectively, in a 6 hr geographic local time sector including the US. 4. 1. 2. 2 Current Disruption (CD) Onset Time – Determine CD onset time with t_res<30 s, using two near-equatorial (within 2 Re of magnetic equator) probes, near the anticipated CD site (~8 -10 Re). …(same as baseline) 4. 1. 2. 3 Reconnection (Rx) Onset Time – Determine Rx onset time with t_res<30 s, using two near-equatorial (<5 Re of magnetic equator) probes, bracketing the anticipated Rx site (20 -25 Re). … (same as baseline) 4. 1. 2. 4 Simultaneous Observations – Obtain simultaneous observations of: substorm onset and meridian (ground), CD onset and reconnection onset for >5 substorms in the prime observation season (September-April). Substorm statistics discussed in S-4 point to a requirement of >94 hrs of four probe alignments. 4. 1. 2. 5 Energetic ion and electron fluxes – SST to measure near the ecliptic plane (+/-30 o) superthermal i+ and e- fluxes (30 -100 ke. V) at t_res<30 s. 4. 1. 2. 6 Earthward Flows – Track between probes the earthward ion flows (400 km/s) from the reconnection site and the tailward moving rarefaction wave in the magnetic field, and ion plasma pressure (motion at 1600 km/s) with sufficient precision (d. V/V=10% or V within 50 km/s whichever is larger, d. B/B=10%, or B within 1 n. T whichever is larger, d. P/P=10%, or P within 0. 1 n. Pa whichever is larger) to ascertain macroscale coupling between current disruption and reconnection site during >5 substorm onsets. THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Cost Summary THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Cost Budget Comparison THEMIS Phase B/C/D Costs Compare Well to RHESSI Actuals – THEMIS Instruments Require Less Development than HESSI THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Heritage Instrument Cost Instrument Mass. v. Cost Modeling – Categorized Each Component by its Complexity • EBOX : Electronics Box (src EFI & HESSI) • MECH : Mechanism with Few Electronics Parts (src Cluster) • SENSOR : Mixed Mechanical and Electronic Parts (src FAST) – Computed Mass of Flight & Spare Units • Grass Roots Budget is 6% Over Model So Budget is Sufficient THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Question 15: Heritage Cost Question 15 (Cont): Heritage Instruments Costs. v. THEMIS – Typical NASA Instrument Contracts Have Greater Scope of Effort • • • Science, Management, Systems Engineering, Quality Assurance Mission Operations and Data Analysis Significant Instrument Design and Development Instrument Sensors Instrument Main Electronics Instrument Flight Software – THEMIS Sensor Costs • Include Engineering for Interface-driven Modifications • Include Sensor Fabrication and Test in Quantity • Other Efforts are Costed in WBS 1 (Science, Management, Systems Engineering, Quality Assurance), WBS 2. 1. 1 (IDPU, FSW), WBS 4 (MODA) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Reserve Development Reserve of >25% – Must Maintain 20% thru CR Emphasis on Design Phase – Able to Meet Needs PDR/CDR – Typically Review Team Gen’d – Factor of 5 Impacts Foreseen LV Integration – Supports 2 mo slip +15% CTC Performance Data from HESSI – Ended Phase A at 19. 4% Reserve but Used < 50% of it by Delivery THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Question 16 : Reserves Question 16: Please discuss why the proposed cost reserves are adequate, and your plan for managing these reserves. What is the justification for no Phase B and E cost reserves? How are descope decisions triggered? Answer: Reserves are Adequate at this Stage – Believe 25% is Appropriate for the End of Phase A – Mid-Point in Time Between Proposal and CR. Proposal Had 30%. – HESSI Used less than 10% Reserve Phasing – Reserve Plan Starts in FY 04, Consistent with PDR – Prefer to Work a Complete Systemic Solution and Cost Changes by CR – Reserves Fully Authorized through Launch. • Minimal Options for Cost Recovery While Waiting for Launch • Phase E Has Cost Saving Options (Limit Lifetime, Data Analysis Duration) • If Reserve not Absolutely Needed for Launch, Will Be Available for MODA Descope Trigger – Estimated Cost to Complete Less Budget is Greater than Available Reserve. THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Question 16 : Reserves Available Descope Options Modest Requirements Allow Flexibility in Instrumentation Cost Savings are Available THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Question 17: Incentives Question 17: The CSR Appendix Section M-8 (P. M 184) indicates that at least a portion of the Swales incentive fee is an encumbrance against the project’s cost reserves. Please clarify the dollar impact of this encumbrance, and explain your rationale for this decision. Answer: Incentive Proposal – 2% for Probes/Probe Carrier Delivery on Time – 2% for Probes On-Orbit Performance – Each is $750 K – Paid Only if Reserve is Available 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 MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Summary Budget Resources are Sufficient – Detailed, Changes Understandable and Modest Reserves are Adequate – Meet Design Needs, Launch Delays, Past Performance THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Probe & Probe Carrier Schedules Probe & Probe Carrier Schedule is driven by Long Lead Procurements: 1) Structures, Thermal, Harness (Swales Manufacturing Beltsville) 2) Propellant Tanks (ARDE under contract - FFP) 3) RCS with Swales Structures (AEROJET under contract - FFP) 4) Transponder (L 3 -Com under contract - FFP) 5) Digital Sun Sensor (ST-5/ADCOLE under contract - FFP) 6) Bus Avionics Unit (BAU) Single Board Computer (General Dynamics <GDDS> under contract) 7) BAU Power Control Electronics (Swales Design/GDDS manufacture) 8) BAU SMEX/TRIANA Comp Card (Swales Design/GDDS manufacture) 9) Battery (Proposals being evaluated, FFP award mid February) 10) Solar Arrays with Swales substrates (RFPs on street award late February) 11) Probe Carrier Separation System (Swales Manufacturing Beltsville) Probe 1 is completed first and is the trail blazer for Probes 2 – 5 Baseline is 12 weeks of schedule contingency (60 working days) between Probe 1 Delivery and the start of Probe I&T Subsequent Probe builds have 40 Days (8 weeks) of schedule contingency for each set of builds The “A” Team consists of the full complement of the I&T Team. The “A” team builds Probe 1 and then partitions into two Teams to build Probes 2 & 3 in parallel. A residual of the “A” team (Team 1) continues on with the environmental testing of Probes. Following completion of Probes 2 & 3 they are handed off to A Team for environmental testing. Teams 2 & 3 are assigned to complete Probes 4 & 5. Probe Carrier is built in parallel by a separate Mechanical Team and links up with Probes at test facility. The Probe Carrier has 40 Days of schedule contingency. Schedule contingency at back end of program has been lumped into a full 60 days (4 W +4 W THEMIS MCRR GSFC+4 W) 2/4/2004 based on direction from GSFC

Major Milestone Schedule #1 General Assumptions – Five day work week with 8 hrs per, shift planned for nominal flow • Exception - TV/TB testing and major moves – I&T Team A is over staffed with teams 1 -3 in order to cross train for Probe 2 -5 I&T – Weekends & additional shifts can be used to make up schedule due to THEMISlate MCRRdeliveries anomalies prior to mission I&T GSFC 2/4/2004

Summary Schedule with Team Assignments for I&T THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Alternate w/o Dates Summary Schedule with Team Assignments for I&T THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Major Milestone Schedule #2 Potential earlier Potential delivery of earlier Instruments delivery of allows Instruments earlier start allows earlier of I&T start of Instrument I&T Bus integration contingencies Working day to Currently working day today dayscheduling flow with scheduling flow. UCB with UCB THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Major Milestone Schedule #3 Probe Carrier contingency is in parallel with Probe schedule contingency Probe #1 has significant slack at end of I&T Unused slack will be utilized for mission simulations (based on resource availability) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Major Milestone Schedule #3 Probe Carrier contingency is in parallel with Probe schedule contingency Probe #1 has significant slack at end of I&T Unused slack will be utilized for mission simulations (based on resource availability) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Mission Level Critical Path THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Critical Path Analysis Drill Down Current critical path at Probe level – Base panel composite structure delivery to RCS vendor (P 1 late January ‘ 05) • Subsequently drives availability of base panel for BAU, Battery & Transponder integration – Overall structure deliveries are driven by thermal cycling & strength testing of each Probe prior to delivery to I&T Probe Carrier is off the critical path – Built in parallel with Probes 1 – 5 – Separation System is part of the Probe Carrier and is decoupled from the Probes until late in the test program. – Separation System has extensive test program of prototype (2004) with early check fit with Probes – Has adequate schedule contingency Flight software is off critical path – Using commercial processor boards at Hammers (2003) and Swales FLATSAT (2004) – Processor Board Engineering Development Unit planned for mid 2004 Mitigation Strategies – BAU EDU can be used to start Probe Bus I&T – BUS & IDPU simulators are used – Base panel simulators to be used for RCS integration start THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Cost Management @ Swales General Tracking of Costs – Subsystem Leads responsible for monitoring all labor and material charges • Charge numbers are opened at the fifth WBS level – PM and Subsystem Leads review weekly spending via on-line reports • Incurred cost data available weekly – Major subcontracts are Firm Fixed Price with $ Milestones consistent with SOW (exception to Hammers) – Contractors working via purchase order or cost-reimbursement, • invoice bi- monthly • PM sign off required prior to processing Phase B - Budgets versus actual spending worked at summary level Phase C/D – Swales internal Performance Measurement System THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004 – Budget Cost Work Schedule (BCWS) developed in Open Plan for

Probe & Probe Carrier Program Management Pre-Confirmation Review February 4, 2004 Backup Slides WBS & Probe/Probe Carrier Costing Approach Phase B Burn Rate RAO Assessment THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Probe and Probe Carrier Cost Basis of Estimates Primary = Represents primary means of pricing. * Note: Yes indicates that this WBS element has lower level WBS elements, which include NRE, hardware, and RE items. THEMIS MCRR Secondary = Represents secondary means of pricing. GSFC 2/4/2004

Probe and Probe Carrier Cost Basis of Estimates Primary = Represents primary means of pricing. * Note: Yes indicates that this WBS element has lower level WBS elements, which include NRE, hardware, and RE items. Secondary = Represents secondary means of pricing. THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

Phase B Burn Rate (Inception To Date 12/31/03) Exceptional labor performance against Cost Proposal – Slower start up in staffing in some areas (Electrical Engineering) – On average we are using a more experienced staff than originally q Subcontract/Materials Plan – Spend rate is behind plan due to assumptions proposed resulting in design made in cost proposal on Milestone Payment labor efficiencies plans for FFP contracts – Recent labor levels (December – Generally there is a lag of 30 – 45 days from & January) are consistent with assumed incurred cost (plan) versus actual cost proposal labor levels billing essentially reaching full staffing – Awarded FFP contracts (Tanks, RCS, – Current labor savings will be Transponder) are in line with Phase A THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004 estimates used to buy down risk in phase C/D

THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

RAO Probe Subsystem Cost Assessment In general Non Recurring (NRE) comparison is in acceptable range (RAO 10% higher) – Percent Difference at Subsystem Level defined as: • {RAO}/{Swales Grass Roots BOE}) Largest discrepancy is in Recurring (RE) element: – Structures @ 104% (RAO > than Swales Grass Roots) • Analysis of Recurring effort indicates that RAO estimate is higher than Swales Grass Roots BOE. This represents nearly 43% (5 Probes x $730 K or $3. 65 M) of total dollar value of difference between RAO and Swales for all cost elements. • Swales believes that our Grass Roots BOE is representative of the work to be performed: – Based on Swales Commercial Space manufacturing of structures (we do this for a living every day on a volume & cost constrained basis) – All work performed in house at Swales Beltsville facility at industry competitive rates – Tolerances and materials used on structure average for Space structures and are not “Optical Bench” class – Majority of panels are cut from larger pre formed panels therefore reducing cycle times – Tooling is less complex due to the method above and is spread over multiple builds – No Mechanisms on Probe Bus which is typically included in historical Mechanical Cost at Completion numbers (Separation System costs are captured under Probe Carrier WBS) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004

RAO Probe Subsystem Cost Assessment Con’t Largest discrepancy is in Recurring (RE) element: – Power @ 73% (RAO > than Swales Grass Roots) • Analysis of Recurring effort indicates that RAO estimate is higher than Swales Grass Roots BOE. This represents nearly 20% (5 Probes x $340 K or $1. 7 M) of total dollar value of difference between RAO and Swales for all cost elements. – Majority of RE is in Battery & Solar Array costs (will be negotiated as FFP) – Lithium-Ion Battery & Solar Array costs are based on Phase A FFP quotes from industry – Typically the Lithium-Ion batteries have lower per unit costs than industry standard – Solar Array substrate costs are included in structures WBS C&DH @ 17% (RAO > than Swales Grass Roots) – Swales Cost Proposal assumed CFE Processor board and therefore was not priced by Swales. If this was priced and included in the cost proposal RAO and Swales grass roots estimate would have been better aligned Probe Carrier/Separation System indicates RAO estimate (lower bound) is in line with revised Swales estimate. Increase in estimate was due to higher costs for Separation System development and materials. (This was one of the several factors which drove Swales to developed the Separation System in-house) THEMIS MCRR GSFC 2/4/2004