MPDR RFA#4 TITLE: Provide Design Information from the Instrument Peer Reviews

1. MPDR RFA#4 TITLE: Provide Design Information from the Instrument Peer Reviews REQUESTED BY: Joseph Bolek, Mark Goans SPECIFIC REQUEST: Provide peer review presentation packages containing design information presented at the instrument peer reviews/PDRs. Also provide peer review summary reports for each instrument that identifies the content of the review and discussions of the flow-down of requirements, ability of the design to meet functional and performance requirements, and maturity of the design relative to the preliminary design phase. SUPPORTING RATIONALE: Design details on the instruments were not presented at the mission PDR. The review team did not attend the peer reviews and any instrument PDRs, therefore, we do not have sufficient insight into the details of the designs.

2. RESPONSE :  Bus peer review information was provided to Frank Snow at the bus PDR in hard copy and CDROM. Instrument peer review information has been publicly available at the THEMIS ftp site and the information was provided to the review team at the MPDR verbally and shortly thereafter by email: ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/ For FGM, presentations, attendees and report: ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/FGM ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/FGM/PDR_BS_Attendees.jpg ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/reviews/FGM_EPR_Report_Final.doc For SCM, presentations, attendees and report: ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/SCM/ ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/SCM/SCM_liste particip_peerPDR.doc ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/reviews/SCM_EPR_Report_Final.doc For ESA/SST/EFI/IDPU/BOOMS presentations, attendees and report: ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/ESA/* …/SST, …/EFI, …/IDPU, …/MAGBOOMS/ ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/peerPDR_attendees_UCB20031015-17.xls ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/reviews/UCB_Instruments_EPR_Report_Final.doc For GBO presentations, attendees and report: ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/GBO/* ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/peerPDR_attendees_UCB20031015-17.xls ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/reviews/GBPReviewPanelReport.doc For MsnOps presentations and report: ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/MsnOps/ ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1.1%20Management/MEETINGS/PhaseB_PDR/reviews/KVRichon_ThemsFD&MOPeerRvwPanelRpt.doc

3. In the ensuing pages please find summaries of the bus and instrument PDR agendas first. It is followed by a flowdown of instrument requirements, adherence of the design to those requirements. Design maturity is beyond PDR level, as evidenced by the peer review reports and as surmised by the MPDR reviews attended by the IIRT. We ensourage the IIRT to visit the THEMIS ftp site and take a look at the detailed design information presented in the reviews. A CDROM with both the bus and instrument peer reviews will be sent to the chairs of the IIRT shortly.

4. Bus peer PDR process and attendees#1 Steve Brodeur former Head of GSFC Mechanical Engineering branch and Jim Barrowman former head of the Explorers Office at GSFC chaired the reviews. Other Swales Engineers, not directly associated with the THEMIS program, were also present and served as informal reviewers, and contributed their verbal comments and questions during the presentations, as well as writing RFAs, Concerns, and Comments. The complete list of attendees is contained in each Subsystem summary memos. Notes/Minutes from the meeting were recorded by Kevin Brenneman and are included in each Subsystem’s memo. Also included are the RFAs, Concerns, and Comments/Suggestions for each subsystem. Note only RFAs were officially required to be tracked for resolution in this process (general practice) however a number of the Concerns and Comments/Suggestions were captured and incorporated into the PDR presentation materials. Per the guidelines provided by Swales Program Management (part of THEMIS EPRP) and consistent with a PDR level design the Subsystem leads were directed to present the subsystems requirements, configuration, performance, verification program, etc. in an open forum with the review team. Consistent with good Peer Review protocol open exchange was encouraged and facilitated by the Review Chairman. The System Overview on the second day did not have reviewers since it only presented an introduction to the subsystems for the benefit of the review team. A summary memo was prepared to document the minutes from each presentation. An internal working meeting/informal review was held on the afternoon of October 10th on I&T and EGSE however this meeting was not subjected to the same Peer Review requirements. No actions were taken from that meeting, and no external reviewers were present, so it is not included in this Peer Review summary. The detailed memos which were generated in bus peer PDRs fed into the MPDR presentations but are not included in the CDROM. However they are available to the Program Manager and the PI for their review. They can be made available to the Explorer’s office upon request.

5. Bus peer PDR process and attendees#2

6. Instrument peer PDR reviewers #1

7. Instrument peer PDR reviewers #2

8. FGM • Preliminary Design Review • October 8-9, 2003 • Braunschweig / Germany

9. FGM-Agenda October 8, 2003

10. FGM-Agenda October 9, 2003

11. FGM Requirements (1) IN.FGM-1. The FGM shall measure DC and low frequency perturbations of the magnetic field IN.FGM-2. The absolute stability of the FGM shall be less than 1nT • Determination of 3 offsets and 9 elements of the calibration matrix (scale values, non-orthogonality, sensor orientation) through in-flight calibration once per orbit • Spinning S/C provides 8 of 12 calibration numbers • Scale values are known accurately enough from pre-flight calibration • The determination of the spin axis offset can be done to 1nT accuracy by known physics during a standard orbit and to +/-0.1nT accuracy when being in solar wind

12. FGM Requirements (2) IN.FGM-3a. The relative stability of the FGM shall be less than 0.2nT/12hrs IN.FGM-3b. The relative stability of the FGM shall be less than 0.1nT/hr • Offset / Time: < 0.1nT/h; < 0.2nT/12hrs; < 1nT/year; • Offset / Temperature: < 0.1nT/°C • Scale value / Temp.: < 24ppm (0.8nT/°C @ 32000nT) • Orthogonality / Temp.: can be neglected IN.FGM-5. The FGM noise level @ 1Hz shall be less than 0.03nT/sqrt(Hz) • Sensor noise: < 10pT/sqrt(Hz) @ 1 Hz

13. FGM Requirements (3) • IN.FGM-4. The FGM digital resolution shall be less than 0.1nT • IN.FGM-6. The FGM science range shall exceed 0-1000nT • FGM provides 0.01nT digital resolution independent of the external field due to digital magnetometer principle • The maximum feedback field (range) is about 32000nT • 24 bits per field component will be sent to the IDPU • 16 bits will be selected for transmission • 10pT digital resolution if B < 320nT • 160pT digital resolution if B > 2500nT • 1.2nT digital resolution if B > 20000nT

14. FGM Requirements (4) • IN.FGM-7. The FGM frequency range shall exceed DC-1 Hz • FGM primary data rate is 128Hz (7.5ms measurement, 0.3ms feedback setting) • Further averaging will be done in the FGE FPGA and/or by the IDPU

15. FGM-Mission Requirements (1)

16. FGM-Mission Requirements (2) • Needed supply voltages and currents based on VEX-MAG and bread board: • +5Vd & +2.5Vd (FPGA & DAC) 10mA • +8Va (excitation & amplifiers) 50mA (30mA+20mA) • -8Va (amplifiers) 20mA • +/-5Va (ADC) 15mA • 760mW if all voltages will be provided (+80/-0mW) •  No EEE part with > 100mW power dissipation!

17. FGM-Mission Requirements (3) • operating temperature range (sensor/electronics): –100°C / -20°C to +65°C / +45°C • cold start (sensor/electronics): -100 °C / -50°C • survival temperature range (sensor/electronics): –100°C / -50 °C to +65°C • FGM sensor qualified for +/-100°C (Rosetta, VenusExpress)

18. FGM-Mission Requirements (4)

19. FGM-Peer Review Results • 21 Findings: • From No.1 - Jitter spec. of CLK8MHz should meet the FGM requirements (i.e. 10%) • To No.21 – Magnetic control plan and S/C test in GSFC coil facility (under UCB control)  FGM team fully understands the findings and will take it into account during the upcoming instrument development process! • 2 RFAs: RFA FGM-1: Magnetic Cleanliness Status: UCB is working on it RFA FGM-2: Anti-Aliasing Filter Status: FGM working on it • It was always planned to implement such a filter • Final filter spec is dependant on a trade-off between anti-aliasing, data decimation and impact on the quality of the de-spinning process.

20. SCM • Preliminary Design Review • October 10, 2003 • CETP / France

21. 8:30-9:00 Introduction, SCM Overview and Specifications Alain Roux 9:00-9:30 Mechanical Design : -antennas manufacturing -support SCM Christophe Coillot 9:30-10:00 Electrical design Christophe Coillot Break 10:15-10:45 Mechanical and Electrical Design : 3D+ 10:45-11:15 Mechanical and electrical design Abdel Bouabdellah 11:15-11:45 Interface Requirements Abdel Bouabdellah 11:45-12:00 Power and Mass Summary : Objectives versus state of realization Bertrand Delaporte Lunch 1:30-2:15 1) Test 1) Pre-I&T at UCB 2) Spacecraft Integration Plan and Support 3) GSE provided and required : Bertrand Delaporte SCM-peer PDR agenda

22. 02:15-02:30 Implementation Schedule Bertrand Delaporte 02:30-02:45 Parts and Materials Christophe Coillot 02:45-03:00 Contamination control, safety and assurance Abdel Bouabdellah Break 03:15-03:30 Summary Alain Roux / Olivier Lecontel 03:30-04:00 Visit at CETP 04:00-05:00 Splinter sessions 1. Review team assembly2. ITAR/MOU and Import-Export licencing 3. Other UCB/CETP 05:00-05:30 Recommendations from review team Review Team SCM-peer PDR agenda

23. SCM-Mission Requirements

24. SCM-Mission Requirements

25. SCM-Sensor Requirements

26. SCM Boom Requirements

27. SCM-Peer Review Results • Status of RFAs RFA1: -AC magnetic cleanliness Status - Main issue is solar cells rotation (non circular S/C). Magnetic modeling will be made to estimate spurious noise at SCM location, once the info on solar cell wiring is available. UCLA is conducting a mag-cleanliness program; they have the software to carry out this evaluation -CETP can help by providing a “sniffer”, to measure spurious noise from s/c, and from other instruments. Involves some extra cost.

28. SCM-Peer Review Results RFA2: -Schedule problem with FM1/PA -Part list to be agreed with UCB Status: -delivery of FM1 together with FM2&3 on september 24th; agreed with UCB. -Final part list sent to UCB nov 10th. RFA3: -Alignment budget Status : -Magnetic axis determined within 0.2% during tests at Chambon, once the antenna are mounted on their structure. -Main difficulty is stability/knowledge of boom axis.

29. ESA/SST/EFI/IDPU/Booms/GBO-Peer Reviews(UCB Oct 15,16,17)

30. ESA/SST/EFI/IDPU/Booms/GBO-Peer Review Agenda (UCB Oct 15,16,17)

31. ESA/SST/EFI/IDPU/Booms/GBO-Peer Review Agenda (UCB Oct 15,16,17)

32. ESA/SST/EFI/IDPU/Booms/GBO-Peer Review Agenda (UCB Oct 15,16,17) Day 3

33. ESA Plasma Analyzer Instrument • Preliminary Design Review • Charles Carlson, Bill Elliot, Paul Turin, Jim Lewis • University of California - Berkeley

34. Overview • Generic Subsystem • Requirements & Specifications • Heritage • Design Overview • Block Diagram • Component Descriptions • Mechanical and Thermal • Mass and Power • Schedule • Issues

35. ESA-Mission Requirements

36. ESA-Mission Requirements

37. ESA-Science Requirements

38. ESA-Performance Requirements

39. ESA-Peer Review Results • Status of RFAs RFA: UCB-2 Monitor aging of calibration beam Already Done? RFA: UCB-3 Formalize nanomuscle test plan No attenuator on ESA; solar wind goals met with current anodes. No nanomuscle used at all now on ESA. RFA: UCB-4 Mass and power formal tracking Done by systems engineer; reported to GSFC. RFA: UCB-5 Establish program plans for test program Done by systems engineer. Verification and test plan draft submitted.

40. SST SubsystemPreliminary Design Review Davin Larson, Thomas Moreau, Ron Canario, Robert Lee, Jim Lewis UCB

41. Overview • Solid State Telescope (SST) • Requirements and Specifications • Block Diagram • Mechanical Design • Detectors • Collimation • Magnets • Attenuator (aka shutter, door) • Detector placement / FOV issues • Mass estimates • Electrical Design • AFE – (Analog Front End) (aka: DFE) • ADC board (aka: DAP) • Power Estimates • Testing and Calibration • Schedule • Issues

42. SST-Mission Requirements

43. SST-Mission Requirements

44. SST-Science Requirements

45. SST-Performance Requirements

46. SST-Peer Review Results • Status of RFAs RFA: UCB-3 Nanomuscle Development RFA: UCB-4 Mass / Power RFA: UCB-5 Mechanism Life Cycle Testing RFA: UCB-6 SST Operating Temperature RFA: UCB-7 SST Reconsider the following design decisions: • Changing the sweep magnet to better exclude 250--400 keV electrons. - Already Done. • Operating the detectors at an average temperature 0 C instead of 25 C. - In progress. • Increasing the ion energy range to include the 6 MeV calibration point. – This is current plan- However there remains strong probability of reducing to ~2 MeV to maximize prime science. • Use of high-Z materials (tungsten) near the detectors should be evaluated in terms of locally generating bremsstrahlung x-ray background. This has been modeled and current plans are to use Be-Cu knife edges. • Sun glints not only temporarily blind the particle detectors, but preamp can saturate and require additional time to recover. This effect to be measured, especially with their thinner dead layers. – To be measured using Breadboard and ETU

47. Magnetometer Booms (MAGS) • Preliminary Design Review • Hari Dharan • Space Sciences Laboratory • University of California at Berkeley

48. Outline • Mag Booms • Overview • Requirements & Specifications • Mechanical Design • Deployment Simulation and Results • Frangibolt Assembly • Elbow Hinge Design • Base Hinge Design • Tube Design • Thermal Considerations • Mass • Mag Boom Length • Harness Layout • Fabrication and Assembly Plan • Parts and Materials • Test Plan • Schedule

49. Mag. Boom Requirements • THEMIS MISSION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS • Mag. Boom deployment shall be repeatable to 1 degree • Mag. Boom stability shall be better than 0.1 degrees. • Mag. Boom deployed stiffness shall be greater than 0.75 Hz • Mag. Booms shall be designed to be deployed between 0 and 15 RPM • The SCM boom shall be at least 1 meter long. • The FGM boom shall be at least 2 meter long.

50. Mag. Boom Requirements GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS • Safety and Safety Factors (MIL-STD-1522, EWR-127-1; P-10) • Design Margins and Safety Factors (NASA-STD-5001; P-11) • Stress Corrosion Cracking Sensitivity (MSFC-STD-3029; P-12) • Composite & Bonded Joint Proof Loads (NASA-STD-5001; P-14) • Materials Outgassing: 1% TML, 0.1% VCML (M-31, -32, -33) • Dissimilar Materials & Electrolyte Corrosion (P-15) THEMIS UNIQUE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS • Magnetic Cleanliness Plan (M-26, -27, -28) • Electrostatic Cleanliness Plan (M-29, -30) • Contamination Control Plan (M-31, -32, -33)