Upload
merlin
View
42
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ISOC Status Review. June 3, 2004. 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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
1
ISOC Status ReviewISOC Status Review
June 3, 2004
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
2
OverviewOverview
– 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.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
3
LAT/ISOC Organization Post LaunchLAT/ISOC Organization Post Launch
NASAGLAST Project
PI: P. MichelsonInst Sci: S.Ritz
Instrument Ops Advisory Board
H/W subsystem leads, key Technical Advisors from throughout collaboration
ISOC ManagerW. Craig (Acting)
4.1
4.1.B
Science Analysis Center4.1.B.4
LAT Ops Facility (LOF)4.1.B.1
Sci. Ops Group (SOG)4.1.B.2
Sci. Analysis SW (SAS)R. Dubois
4.1.B.3
Software
Operations
Calib
Optimization
Flt S/w & Testbed
Pipeline Config.
Pipeline
Anayl Tools
Collab
Computing
Resources
Only
SSAC
Science AnalysisCoordination
CommitteeSAC head, Analysis
leads, ISOC rep, SAS head
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
4
StaffingStaffing
• 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.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
5
Staffing ProfilesStaffing Profiles
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55
SOG
LOF
Manage
CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008CY 2004
Excludes SAS and SAC.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
6
Staffing Profiles (with SAS/SAC)Staffing Profiles (with SAS/SAC)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53
SAC
SAS
SOG
LOF
Manage
CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008CY 2004
Does not include Stanford, UCSC, NRL, GSFC or collaboration members.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
7
ArchitectureArchitecture
• 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
8
ITOS/Astro RT TradeITOS/Astro RT Trade
• In favor of either– Both AstroRT and ITOS would provide basic instrument
health and safety functions• Telemetry display• EU conversion• Limit checking and monitoring• Trending• Command and telemetry database access
– Both products have learnable interfaces and scripting• AstroRT uses LabView for display and Perl scripts for
automation• ITOS displays are reportedly easy to create, uses STOL
for input
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
9
ITOS/Astro RT TradeITOS/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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
10
ITOS/Astro RT TradeITOS/Astro RT Trade
• In favor of AstroRT– LAT is using AstroRT for LAT flight software testing
• Against AstroRT– 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 AstroRT 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 AstroRT
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
11
Proposed ISOC S/W ArchitectureProposed ISOC S/W Architecture
ITOS
Cmd DB
SOH trending and display
All State of Health requirements
satisfied within ITOS
MOC/GSSC
LATTE Ops LATOPS
DataCmd
Science data/performance trending
Register load generation
Relational database interaction
Pipeline/SAS interactions
No req’ts on MOC that require
LATOPS layer
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
12
RFA responsesRFA responses
# RFA Summary Requestor Actionee Comment
1 a. Need ISOC Management Plan & Approachb. ISOC Documentation Set
R. Schweiss W. Craig Plan draft and list of ISOC documents on http://www-glast.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. RackleyC. 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://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/ioc/
6 Staffing plan and profile M. RackleyC. Young
W. CraigD. 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
13
RFA responses, cont’dRFA 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. CraigD. 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. BatorJ. Panetta
Draft response – slides attached
18 Specify plans and requirements for automation of Ops software
R. CorbetM. Rackley
L. BatorJ. Panetta
Draft response for 1st part, awaiting S. Culp for 2nd
19 Specify plans and requirements for Ops SW to be of sufficient robustness
R. Corbet L. BatorJ. Panetta
ECD 6/15/04 – S. Culp
20 Specify what other ground system elements will be involved in LAT operations
R. Corbet L. BatorD. Lung
ECD 7/5/04 - working group on contingency plans
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
14
RFA 2 – ISOC Functional Block DiagramRFA 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 (pre-launch w/GSE) phase, L&EO phase, and nominal on-orbit phase configurations specified
– Diagrams for each phase might be needed
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
15
ISOC Dataflow During I&T Single Tower TestingISOC Dataflow During I&T Single Tower Testing
• Obtain data during I&T EM2 testing• Goal is to read houskeeping data off flat file produced by Online• Database development and maintenance is shared between I&T and
ISOC
ISOC
LOF Workstation· Telemetry
AEM/TEM
VME Chassis
-
• External Trigger
Electronics/OnlineSubsystem/simulator
Subsystem (or simulator)
Ethernet Routerand Firewall
Ethernet
Main Dataflow Ethernet
Back door debug RS-232
WA
N
Online Workstation
•Test Exec• Configuration• Commanding•Telemetry• Event Processing• Monitoring• Visualization• Data base• Message logger• Alerts• Electronic log
CPU
• Commanding
• Telemetry
• Monitoring
• Hardware Drivers
DC Power
External Hardware
I&T
CentralDatabase
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
16
ISOC Dataflow During I&T Multi-Tower TestingISOC Dataflow During I&T Multi-Tower Testing
• Obtain data during I&T testing
• Increase in ISOC functionality
I&T
T&DF System (LAT) EGSE
AEM
CPU
LCB
EGSE Crate
WA
N
GASU
CAL, TKRor
SensorSimulator
OnlineWorkstationTEMs
GEM
EBM
Fire
wal
l
28 V Supply
VME
ACDor
SensorSimulator
ISOC
LOF Workstation· Telemetry· Database· Log book
SOG Workstation· Visualization tools
CentralDatabase
SLAC
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
17
ISOC Dataflow with TestBed - Direct to SIUISOC Dataflow with TestBed - Direct to SIU
• Direct interface with SIU for CCSDS command and telemetry packets• Obtain testbed simulated data via SIU• Demonstration of ISOC capability increases as functionality is
developed
SIU
Testbed
CCSDS Telemetry Packets
ISOC
LOF Workstation· Telemetry display· Database mgmt· Log book· Command generation· Trending and analysis
SOG Workstation· Visualization tools· Calibration planning· Trending and analysis
Central Database
OPUS
WA
N
Instrument filesCCSDS Command Packets
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
18
ISOC Dataflow with TestBed - With SIISISOC Dataflow with TestBed - With SIIS
• Interface with SIIS/AstroRT for telemetry packets and commanding• Obtain testbed simulated data via SIU and SIIS• Demonstration of ISOC capability increases as functionality is
developed
SIIS
SIU
Testbed
PC Running AstroRT
High speed science
1553 HK and diagnostic
Instrument filesCommand requests
Telemetry packetsCommands
Telemetry packets
ISOC
LOF Workstation· Telemetry display· Database mgmt· Log book· Command generation· Trending and analysis
SOG Workstation· Visualization tools· Calibration planning· Trending and analysis
Central Database
OPUS
WA
N
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
19
ISOC Dataflow During GRTs, L&EO and On-orbitISOC Dataflow During GRTs, L&EO and On-orbit
Internet
MOC
ITOS Workstation
GSSC
ISOC
LOF Workstation· Telemetry display· Database mgmt· Log book· Command generation· Trending and analysis
SOG Workstation· Visualization tools· Calibration planning· Trending and analysis
Central Database
OPUS
WA
N
Level 1 data productsInstrument filesCommand requests
Level 0 dataOps products
Ops products
• Shows full ISOC capability for L&EO and On-orbit
• GRTs will test capabilities as they are available
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
20
RFA 3 - ISOC Risk AnalysisRFA 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
21
RFA 3 – ISOC Risk AnalysisRFA 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.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
22
RFA 3 – ISOC Risk AnalysisRFA 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.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
23
RFA 7 – ISOC ReportsRFA 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)
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
24
RFA 7 – ISOC ReportsRFA 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
25
RFA 7 – ISOC ReportsRFA 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
26
RFA 7 – ISOC ReportsRFA 7 – ISOC Reports
• Data Trending
• Housekeeping data
• Environmental data (temp, voltages, currents)
• Derived science quantities
• Trigger efficiency
• Total count rate
• Bright source monitoring
• Includes statistical analysis
• Generated automatically daily/weekly/monthly
• Published to the web
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
27
RFA 9 - ISOC Lessons LearnedRFA 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 GP- B (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.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
28
RFA 9 - Lessons LearnedRFA 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 co-location 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.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
29
RFA 9 - Lessons LearnedRFA 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.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
30
RFA 11 – LAT ModesRFA 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
31
RFA 11 – LAT Modes, cont’dRFA 11 – LAT Modes, cont’d
Mission Modes SC Mode LAT Mode
Launch· S-Band rcvr/xmit· On battery power
Off
Early Orbit· Inertial capture· S-Band rcvr/xmit· Sun point with solar arrays tracking
Survival
Engineering
· Inertial point, zenith point, or maneuver
· Ku-Band xmit, S-Band rcvr/xmit· Solar arrays tracking
Engineering
Calibration
SAA
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
Hardware
Survival
Re-Entry· Cruise, delta-V· S-Band rcvr/xmit· Solar arrays tracking
Off
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
32
LAT Modes, cont’dLAT Modes, cont’d
Pointed &Repoint
Sky Survey
Observing Modes
Engineering
SAA
Standby Modes
Calibration
Survival
Hardware
Launch & Early
A = Autonomous
C = Commanded
C
C
C
C
Safing
Launch
Pointed and Repoint
Sky Survey
EngSAA
Standby ModesCal
Survival
Hardware Safe
Launch & Early Orbit
C
C
C
C
C
Safing
Launch
Observing Modes
A,C
A,C
A,CA,C
A,CC C
Valid science data
Science data may not be valid
No science data
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
33
RFA-12: Number of EEPROM WritesRFA-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 TrueFlash File System overlay
(full description is on RFA response, available on ISOC web page)
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
34
RFA 14 - ISOC Data StorageRFA 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. DuBois. 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 (~ 1Tb) of database.
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
35
Monthly Compute Costs
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
May Nov May Nov May Nov May Nov May
k$
Processing
Storage Costs
RFA 14 - Monthly CostsRFA 14 - Monthly Costs
2005 2006 2007 2008
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
36
RFA 17 – Define LOF/SOG ToolsRFA 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
37
RFA 17 - ResponseRFA 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
38
RFA 17 - Response, cont’dRFA 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
39
RFA 17 - ISOC Software ToolsRFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools
ISOC Tools
OP
US
ITO
S
Ex
ists
with
L
AT
TE
Ex
istin
g O
the
r
To
be
Writte
n
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 X
1.4 Data integrity checks X
1.5 Science data reconstruction X
1.6 Calibration tracking X
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
40
RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’dRFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d
ISOC Tools
OP
US
ITO
S
Ex
ists
with
L
AT
TE
Ex
istin
g O
the
r
To
be
Writte
n
2 Operations Tools
2.1 Electronic logbook X
2.1.1 Reporting X X
2.1.2 Command history X X
2.2 Database management
2.2.1 Command and telemetry X
2.2.2 Science and calibration X
2.3 Archive management SLAC SCS
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
41
RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’dRFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d
ISOC Tools
OP
US
ITO
S
Ex
ists
with
L
AT
TE
Ex
istin
g O
the
r
To
be
Writte
n
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 X
4.2 Memory dump parsing FSW
4.3 Testbed management and operation Elec
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
42
RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’dRFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d
ISOC Tools
OP
US
ITO
S
Ex
ists
with
LA
TT
E
Ex
istin
g O
the
r
To
be
Writte
n
5 Instrument Performance (SOG)
5.1 Visualization tools X X
5.2 Offline calibration SVAC tools
X
5.3 Online calibration X
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
43
RFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’dRFA 17 - ISOC Software Tools, cont’d
ISOC Tools
OP
US
ITO
S
Ex
ists
with
L
AT
TE
Ex
istin
g O
the
r
To
be
Writte
n
6 LAT Commanding Tools
6.1 Command procedure generation and management X
6.1.1 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 Perl script
6.1.2 Telecommand generation 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) X
6.3.2 Command load transfer to GSSC Fastcopy
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
44
RFA-18: ISOC Operations automationRFA-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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
45
RFA-18: ISOC Operations automationRFA-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)
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
46
Roadmap to CDRRoadmap 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
GLAST LAT Project ISOC
47
CDR Prep ScheduleCDR Prep Schedule
• July 8th Revisit roadmap• July 21st Laydown• July 26th Slides to GSFC• July 29th Dry Run • August 4th ISOC Peer Level CDR• August 18th CDR