THEMIS INSTRUMENT TEST REVIEW 1 UCB, December 9, 2004 THEMIS Instrument Test Review Instrument Verification Program Overview Ellen Taylor University of

THEMIS INSTRUMENT TEST REVIEW 1 UCB, December 9, 2004

THEMIS Instrument Test Review

Instrument Verification Program OverviewEllen Taylor

University of California - Berkeley


• Performance and Environmental Verification Philosophy• Requirement Development and Verification Process• Mission Requirements Documents (MRD) Verification Status• Environmental Test Matrix (ETM) Verification Status

• Instrument Performance Verification• Instrument System MRD Verification• Instrument MRD Verification Summary

• Instrument Environmental Verification• Instrument Integration and Environmental Test Overview – Jeremy McCauley • Vibration Test Plans, Test Levels and ETU Test Results – Paul Turin• Thermal Test Plans, Test Levels and ETU Test Results – Chris Smith• EMC/MAG Test Plans, Test Levels and ETU Test Results – Michael Ludlam

• Instrument Reliability and Quality Assurance – Ron Jackson• EEE Parts Status – Ron Jackson• Failure Reporting – Ron Jackson• Instrument Test Procedures• Reliability Analyses (FTA, FMEA, PRA) Status

Overview


Requirement Development and Verification Process

Top-Level requirements developed during Phase A • Concept Study Report (CSR) provides basic mission concept• Outlines top-level requirements imposed by science and programmatic objectives

Mission requirements flown down (to subsystem level), formalized and documented early in Phase B• All elements of CSR concept and mission requirements reviewed by development team• Mission Requirements Database (MRD) developed and reviewed• MRD finalized and put under Configuration Control at System Requirements Review

(SRR), July 2003

Subsystem Interfaces and Component Requirements further detailed in Phase B• Interface Control Documents between Subsystems and Institutions• System and Subsystem Specifications (Board Specifications, SOWs, etc)• Mission Plans and Policies (PAIP, Risk Management Plan, FMECA, etc)• Control Plans (Magnetics, ESC, Contamination)


Requirement Development and Verification Process

Requirement Verification Plans developed in Phase B and C• Development of Verification Matrix ensures a test or analysis is scheduled for all Mission

Requirements in MRD• Performance Verification and Environmental Test Plans provide launch and space

environments and outlines comprehensive component, subsystem and system level test program

• Environmental Test Matrix (ETM) developed

Requirements Compliance and Verification Matrices completed in Phase D• MRD and ETM evolve into summary of verification and test program as run• Documents Verification and Compliance Status of all Requirements• Provides direct trace-ability from requirements to test procedures and reports


Performance Verification

Performance Verification Program• Applies to all technical requirements stated in MRD and associated documents• Each item in MRD has field for verification method

Performance Verification Methodology• Verification of requirements is by Inspection (I), Analysis (A), Test (T) or combination• Tasks for each method include: establishing the criteria; preparing plans and procedures;

implementing; and documenting the results.

Performance Verification Levels• Verification will be performed at one or more of following levels: Component, Sub-Assembly,

Assembly, Subsystem, System

Example from THEMIS MRD Verification Matrix:

Org. ID Title Statement Compliance Verification method

Mission Requirements (M-#)Lifetime and RadiationUCB M-3 Total Dose

RadiationTHEMIS shall be designed for a total dose environment of 33 krad/year (66 krad total)

GSFC Radiation analyses performed. Performance Assurance and Implementation Plan (PAIP) for part selection.

A: GSFC Ray Trace Radiation Analysis provides radiation environment for every subsystem and instrument; I/T: Parts selected with known radiation characteristics or total dose radiation tested

Mission DesignUCB M-12 Orbital Plan The selected orbital plan shall achieve greater

than 188 hours of five-probe conjuctions per year during the prime tail observation season

Compliance per Conjunction Analysis A: Conjunction analysis


MRD Status

Mission Requirements Document (MRD) Status• MRD Rev A released at System Requirements Review (SRR)

• MRD Rev B released prior to Instrument and Subsystem Peer Reviews

• MRD Rev C released at Mission PDR

• MRD Rev D released during Instrument and Subsystem Peer Reviews• Incorporated MPDR RFAs and System Change Notices (SCNs) since PDR

• Added compliance and detailed verification plan (I/A/T) for each requirement

• MRD Rev E released at Mission CDR

• MRD Rev F will be released at Mission PER• Working version of Rev F is used to track verification status of all requirements

• Most Instrument performance requirements have been verified during the ETU development and test w/ all instruments meeting or exceeding required performance

• One waiver is expected for Instrument requirements – SST exceeds magnetic budget allocation


Environmental Verification

Environmental Test Program• Instrument hardware is tested to environmental requirements using GEVS as a Guideline per

CDRL THM-SYS-005 THEMIS Instrument Payload Verification and Environmental Test Specification and summarized in Environmental Test Matrix (ETM)

Environmental Test Methodology• Each hardware item in ETM has fields for test description, test date, and procedure/report• Applies to all instrument assemblies, subsystems and systems

Example from THEMIS Environmental Test Matrix:


ETM Status

Environmental Test Matrix (ETM) Status• ETM presented at Mission CDR and delivered to GSFC as CDRL

• ETM has been further reviewed with minor changes to overall plan• No changes at the Instrument or Instrument Suite Level

• ETM has evolved into summary of test program as-run• Working version is used to track test status of all instrument systems

• Most Instruments have successfully completed all environmental tests on ETUs

• ETU Mag Booms have not gone through Thermal Vacuum Testing – expected mid December

• ETU ESA has not gone through Thermal Vacuum Testing – planned for flight unit only due to heritage


MRD Instrument Payload Requirements• Lifetime and Radiation• Resource Budgets• Thermal• Contamination• Interfaces• Test and Verification

MRD Instrument Requirements• Status of Science Calibration• Performance Tests Completed and Planned• MRD Performance Verification• Changes from ETU to Flight to Improve Performance

Instrument MRD Verification


Instrument Payload


Organization

Mission Manager Frank Snow, GSFC

Mission Manager Frank Snow, GSFC

Financial MgrK. Harps, UCBFinancial MgrK. Harps, UCB

Launch Vehicle G. Skrobott, KSC

Launch Vehicle G. Skrobott, KSC

Project Scientist D. Sibeck, GSFC

Project Scientist D. Sibeck, GSFC

THEMIS PI V. Angelopolous, UCB

THEMIS PI V. Angelopolous, UCB

Project Manager P. Harvey, UCB

Project Manager P. Harvey, UCB

Science Co-I’s Science Co-I’s EPO N. Craig, UCB

EPO N. Craig, UCB

SubcontractsJ. Keenan, UCBSubcontracts

J. Keenan, UCBScheduling

D. Meilhan, UCBScheduling

D. Meilhan, UCBQuality Assurance

R. Jackson, UCBQuality Assurance

R. Jackson, UCB

Mission Systems

E. Taylor, UCB

Mission Systems

E. Taylor, UCB

Mechanical/ Thermal Systems

P. Turin, UCBC. Smith, UCB

Mechanical/ Thermal Systems

P. Turin, UCBC. Smith, UCB

Mag Cleanliness

C. Russell, UCLA

Mag Cleanliness

C. Russell, UCLA

Probe/Probe CarrierManagement

UCB Oversight: D. KingSwales Mgr: M. Cully

Probe/Probe CarrierManagement

UCB Oversight: D. KingSwales Mgr: M. Cully

Instruments

M. Ludlam, UCB

Instruments

M. Ludlam, UCB

Ground Segment

M. Bester, UCB

Ground Segment

M. Bester, UCB

Software Systems

D. King, UCB

Software Systems

D. King, UCB

Mission I&T

J. McCauley, UCB

Mission I&T

J. McCauley, UCB


Organization

InstrumentsInstruments

Electric Field Instrument

(EFI)J. Bonnell

Electric Field Instrument

(EFI)J. Bonnell

ElectroStaticAnalyser

(ESA)C. Carlson

ElectroStaticAnalyser

(ESA)C. Carlson

Solid StateTelescope

(SST)D. Larson

Solid StateTelescope

(SST)D. Larson

InstrumentData Processor

Unit (IDPU)M. Ludlam

InstrumentData Processor

Unit (IDPU)M. Ludlam

FluxgateMag

(FGM)U. Auster

FluxgateMag

(FGM)U. Auster

Search CoilMag

(SCM)A. Roux

Search CoilMag

(SCM)A. Roux

Forrest MozerGreg DeloryArt HullBill DonakowskiGreg DaltonRobert DuckMark PankowDan SchickeleStu HarrisHilary Richard

Forrest MozerGreg DeloryArt HullBill DonakowskiGreg DaltonRobert DuckMark PankowDan SchickeleStu HarrisHilary Richard

Robert AbiadPeter BergHeath BerschDorothy GordonFrank HarveySelda HeavnerJim LewisJeanine PottsChris ScholzNestor Castillo

Robert AbiadPeter BergHeath BerschDorothy GordonFrank HarveySelda HeavnerJim LewisJeanine PottsChris ScholzNestor Castillo

M. MarckwardtBill ElliottRon HermanChris ScholzHeath Bersch

M. MarckwardtBill ElliottRon HermanChris ScholzHeath Bersch

Robert LinDavin LarsonRon CanarioRobert LeeT. Moreau

Robert LinDavin LarsonRon CanarioRobert LeeT. Moreau

Hari DharanY. KimTien TanBill Tyler

Hari DharanY. KimTien TanBill Tyler

TUBS/IWFUli AusterK.H. GlassmeierW. Magnes

TUBS/IWFUli AusterK.H. GlassmeierW. Magnes

CETPAlain RouxBertran de la PorteOlivier Le ContelChristophe CoillotAbdel Bouabdellah

CETPAlain RouxBertran de la PorteOlivier Le ContelChristophe CoillotAbdel Bouabdellah

LASPRobert ErgunAref NammariKen StevensJim Westfall

LASPRobert ErgunAref NammariKen StevensJim Westfall

MagBoomsMag

Booms


REQUIREMENT VERIFICATION METHOD

IN-1. The Instrument Payload shall be designed for at least a two-year lifetime

I/A: All systems designed to two years and analyzed for two year mission

IN-2. The Instrument Payload shall be designed for a total dose environment of 33 krad/year (66 krad for 2 year mission, behind 5mm of Aluminum, RDM 2)

IN-3. The Instrument Payload shall be Single Event Effect (SEE) tolerant and immune to destructive latch-up

A: GSFC Ray Trace Radiation Analysis provides radiation environment for instrument;

I/T: Parts selected with known radiation characteristics or radiation tested for TID and/or SEE

Lifetime and Radiation

Table 2: Radiation dose levels on sensitive parts

Detector Name Box Wall Thickness

(mil) Phase 1 - All Probes

Dose (krad-Si) Phase 2 - Probe 5

Dose (krad-Si) Total Dose (krad-Si)

IDPU 120 1.99E+00 2.33E+01 2.53E+01 ESA Instr 140 6.73E+00 7.48E+01 8.15E+01

SST1 275 5.88E-01 8.15E+00 8.74E+00 SST2 275 6.13E-01 8.49E+00 9.10E+00 EFI 200 1.67E+00 2.05E+01 2.22E+01

Status• Initial GSFC Radiation Analysis complete. See Table 2 from report below.

• Environment < 33 krad for all instruments except ESA (81.5 krad)• Additional electronics shielding added to ESA

• 100% Instrument Parts screened for TID/SEE requirements. Approx. 20 parts were tested.• No parts that failed radiation testing are being used• LVPS redesign required - reduced supply efficiency



IN-6. The Instrument Payload shall not exceed the total allocated mass budget in THM-SYS-008 THEMIS System Mass Budget.xls

T: Instrument payload will be weighed.

IN-7. No component of the Instrument Payload shall exceed the allocated mass budget in THM-SYS-008 THEMIS System Mass Budget.xls

T: Instruments will be weighed prior to delivery.

Resource Budgets - Mass

INSTRUMENT MASS

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

PhaseA

7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 11/03 12/03 1/04 2/04 3/04 4/04 5/04 6/04 7/04 8/04 9/04 10/04

Date

Mas

s(kg

)

Instrument Allocation

Instrument CBE

Instrument Schedule

CBE: 23.19 kgAllocation: 23.63 kgContingency: 1.9%

Status• Approx. 93% of ETU Instrument Payload has been weighed• Thermal blankets and Flight cables are estimated



IN-8. The Instrument Payload shall not exceed the total power allocated in THM-SYS-009 THEMIS System Power Budget.xls

T: Instrument payload power will be measured.

IN-9. No component of the Instrument Payload shall exceed the power allocated in THM-SYS-009 THEMIS System Power Budget.xls

T: Instrument power will be measured prior to delivery.

Resource Budgets - Power

INSTRUMENT POWER

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

PhaseA

7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 11/03 12/03 1/04 2/04 3/04 4/04 5/04 6/04 7/04 8/04 9/04 10/04

Date

Po

wer

(W

)

Instrument CBE+Cont.

Instrument CBE

Instrument Schedule

CBE: 14.27 WAllocation: 14.77 WContingency: 3.5%

Status• Approx. 90% of ETU Instrument Payload power has been measured (all Instruments except ESA)• ~3x power increase between ETU and Flight Actels was estimated and additional resistor load

put on 2.5V line for ETU system



IN-10. The Instrument Payload shall not exceed the allocated data budget of 750Mbits/orbit (uncompressed)

A/T: Analysis of data rates, data budget, system states over an orbit; analysis verified during functional/performance testing

IN-11. The Instrument Payload shall be capable of storing 1 orbit + 1 days worth of Instrument Science and housekeeping data.

A/T: Analysis of storage capability, FSW storage efficiency; analysis verified during functional/performance testing

Resource Budgets - Data

Status• 187.5MB storage is required (750Mbits/orbit +

1 day contingency = 1500Mbits = 187.5MB) • DCB contains 256MB SDRAM for TM storage.

Upper quadrant is devoted to ECC. • Memory analysis using predicted data rates

from Instruments show storage is sufficient for 4 day orbit + 1day contingency at worse-case spin period of 2.7seconds.

Mbytes Packets Raw EfficiencySurvey 105.3 70.5 67%Burst 43.4 30.5 70%Total 148.7 101.0 68%

96 hour Orbit Memory RequirementNominal 3 sec spin period


96 hour Orbit + 1 day Survey Memory RequirementNominal 3 sec spin period


96 hour Orbit + 1 day Survey Memory RequirementSpin Rate 10% high (2.7 sec period)



IN-13. The Instrument Payload shall survive the temperature ranges provided in the ICDs

A/T: Thermal analysis and modeling provides temperature predictions for Instrument Survival; Instruments are thermally tested to predicts plus margin

IN-14. The Instrument Payload shall perform as designed within the temperature ranges provided in the ICDs

A/T: Thermal analysis and modeling provides temperature predictions for Instrument Science Mode; Instruments are thermally tested to predicts plus margin

Thermal Requirements

Status• ETU Instruments are tested to Thermal Limits +10 degrees• Flight Instruments are tested to Thermal Predicts +10 degrees • Most ETU Instruments have completed Thermal Vacuum Testing, with the exception of:

• ETU Mag Booms – expected mid December• ETU ESA – planned for flight unit only due to heritage. ETU ESA Pre-Amp was

tested in IDPU TV Test. ETU ESA Actuator was tested in separate Release Plate Assembly TV Test.



IN-16 The Instrument Payload shall comply with the Magnetics Cleanliness standard described in the THEMIS Magnetics Cleanliness Plan

I/A/T: Verification assured by Magnetics Committee per component budget and requirements provided in THM-SYS-002 Magnetics Control Plan; Components measured prior to Suite Integration in Coil facility.

IN-17 The Instrument Payload shall comply with the THEMIS Electrostatic Cleanliness Plan

I/A/T: Verification per THM-SYS-003 ESC Control Plan; Analysis provides allowable resistance/area and insulator budget; Measurements are made at system level.

IN-18 The Instrument Payload shall comply with the THEMIS Contamination Control Plan

I/A/T: Verification per THM-SYS-004 Contamination Control Plan; Thermal Vacuum Bake-out planned w/ TQCM monitoring.

Contamination Requirements

Status• Worse-case offenders for Magnetics is EFI Booms, SST magnets, IDPU switching frequencies

• ETU EFI Booms w/ mu metal shielding tested at UCLA, meets budget of 0.25 nT @ 2m • SST Magnets analysis and testing show it is extremely difficult to meet 1.25 nT @ 2m.

Waiver likely. • IDPU frequency management plan has implemented in LVPS - switching frequencies

above 100 kHz, separated by 10 kHz to avoid beet frequencies in science range. Noise measurements with SCM sensor were made first week of December 2004. Provisions for synchronization circuit suggested by SWRI implemented in flight LVPS layout, but implementation unlikely given initial SCM testing results.



IN-19. All Instruments shall comply with the electrical specifications

T: Requirements provided in THM-IDPU-001 Backplane Specification; interfaces verified during IDPU integration.

IN-20. The Instrument Payload shall be compatible per IDPU-Instrument ICDs

T: Instruments tested to ICD prior to delivery; interfaces verified during I&T of Instruments to IDPU

IN-21. The Instrument Payload shall be compatible per the IDPU-Probe Bus ICD

T: Instrument Payload tested to ICD prior to delivery; interfaces verified I&T of IDPU to Probe

IN-22. The Instrument Payload shall be compatible per Instrument-Probe Bus ICDs

T: Instrument Payload tested to ICD prior to delivery; interfaces verified during I&T of Instrument Payload to Probe

Interface Requirements

Status• All ETU Instrument Boards (DAP, ETC, FGE, DFB, BEB) have been integrated and tested

with ETU IDPU core system (LVPS, DCB and PCB)• Most ETU Instruments (SSTs, ESA Pre-Amp, EFI Pre-Amp, FGM, SCM, Boom Simulators)

have been integrated and tested with ETU IDPU box (Core System and Instrument Boards)• Data Interface between IDPU and Probe BAU has been tested on 3 occasions (UCB-

Swales I/F Tests: July, October, December). Various levels of interface verification completed during each test. Power Interface Test planned for January.

• Mechanical Hi-Fi Instrument Mock-ups provided to Swales for Integration to Hi-Fi Probe. Mass Models to be provided to Swales for Structure Strength and Thermal Testing.


IDPU TV Configuration

SSTETU (2)

3 x 25 pin

GSEPC

IDPU Full Functional / Thermal Vacuum Tank Configuration

I/FP302

IDPU

TV TANK WALL

IDPU PwrSupply

P204-P206

FGSSTMESA Pwr

Supply

NIOS

MAG Sim (2)

P202

ESAPre-Amp

PCB/FGEETU 2

P501-503

1 x 26 pin

P401

LVPSETU

P601-602

P101

Mu Metal Cap

ACT PwrSupply

DAC 6 channels

SCM ETUPre-Amp

P201

AXB Sim (2)

DAPETU 3

SPB Sim (2)

BEB ETU

1 x 25 pin

DFB ETU

x6

P301

DCB/ETCETU 4

1 x 26 pin


IDPU/Instrument ETU I&T

ETU IDPU Functional Testing

ETU IDPU Thermal Vacuum Testing



IN-23 The Instrument Payload shall verify performance requirements are met per the THEMIS Verification Plan and Environmental Test Specification

I/A/T: Performance Requirements met as documented in MRD Verification Matrix

IN-24 The Instrument Payload shall survive and function prior, during and after exposure to the environments described in the THEMIS Verification Plan and Environmental Test Specification

I/A/T: Environmental Test Requirements met as documented in Environmental Test Matrix (ETM)

Verification and Test

Status• As provided in MRD and ETM and summarized during Review:

• ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1 Management/1.3 Systems Engineering/1. Requirements/thm_sys_001f_MRD.pdf

• ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1 Management/1.3 Systems Engineering/1. Requirements/thm_sys_005AppA_InstrumentETM.pdf


Fluxgate Magnetometer (FGM)

• Calibration Status: • 3 ETU’s completed • F4 & F6 test and calibration completed• F1, F2, F3, F5 test and calibration to be completed by February 2005

• Performance Tests performed on ETUs, F4 & F6:• digital functional test• analogue adjustment of FGS and FGE• temperature test of electronics• temperature test of sensor• test of non-linearity• Earth field registration• determination of sensor axis direction• determination of scale value and orthogonally• noise test

Instrument Science and Performance Requirements


Fluxgate Magnetometer (FGM)

• Verification of MRD Requirements: • All MRD requirements verified on ETU and first flight units• Absolute Stability, Relative Stability, Noise Level, Resolution• Driving Requirement:

• Changes to Flight design from ETU to improve performance:• AD648 to be replaced with LT1013 to improve Absolute Stability measurement• Grounding wire added and feed-back wires replaced with twisted/shielded wires


IN.FGM-5 The FGM noise level @ 1Hz shall be less than 0.03nT/Sqrt(Hz)

noise

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2

[Hz]

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

[nT

/Sqr

t(H

z)]

0.01nT/Sqrt(Hz)

0.03nT/Sqrt(Hz)


Search Coil Magnetometer (SCM)

• Calibration Status: • ETU completed, Magnetic Calibration Facility Chambon-la-Foret• F1, F2, F3 test and calibration completed in December 2004• F4, F5 test and calibration to be completed by February 2005

• Performance Tests performed on ETU:• Transfer function measurement• Calibration signal measurement (spectrum, waveform)• Noise and Sensitivity• Orthogonal measurement• Projection (angle between magnetic field source and magnetic axis)



Search Coil Magnetometer (SCM)

• Verification of MRD Requirements: • All MRD requirements verified on ETU• Transfer Function, Sensitivity, Orthogonality• Driving Requirement:

• Changes to Flight design from ETU to improve performance:• None


IN.SCM-3 The SCM sensitivity shall be better than 1pT/Hz^1/2 @10Hz ,

and 0.1 pT/Hz^1/2 @1 kHz.

Sx Sy Sz

Sensor number 3 2b 1

Sensitivity at 10 Hz pT/sqrt (Hz) 0.73 0.98 0.5

Sensitivity at 100 Hz pT/sqrt (Hz) 0.073 0.069 0.066

Sensitivity at 1 kHz pT/sqrt (Hz) 0.015 0.0154 0.016

Sensitivity at 4 kHz pT/sqrt (Hz) 0.04 0.04 0.04


Solid State Telescope (SST)

• Calibration Status: • ETU1 completed, ETU2 facility issues • F1 test and calibration December 2004• F2, F3, F4, F5 test and calibration to be completed by January 2005

• Performance Tests performed on ETU:• digital functional test• analog functional test• temperature test of electronics• temperature test of sensor (noise testing over temperature)• magnetic cleanliness test and analysis• noise test• detection thresholds• energy thresholds• off-axis response (including information on the response to scattered particles)• dead time• electron and proton detection efficiency of individual counting rate channels • sun pulse recovery



Solid State Telescope (SST)

• Verification of MRD Requirements: • All MRD requirements verified on ETU• Resolution, Moments• Driving Requirements:

• Changes to Flight design from ETU to improve performance:• Added capacitors to reduce noise and cross-talk• Flight detectors w/ improved performance characteristics• Changed baseline sun pulse recovery time (added digital logic)• Lowered operating temperature


IN.SST-7 The SST shall measure energetic particles over an energy range of 30-300keV for ions and 30-100keV for electrons found in the magnetotail plasma sheet .

IN.SST-8 The SST energy sampling resolution, dE/E, shall be better than 30% for ions and electrons.

Am241 Source

59.5 keV photons

Test Pulser14 & 17.5 keV photons

<8 keV FWHM Resolution


Electric Fields Instrument (EFI)

• Calibration Status: • ETU completed• F1 test and calibration December 2004 (SPBs)• F1 test and calibration early January 2005 (AXB)

• Performance Tests performed on ETU:• Quiescent and Operational Currents• DC Tests (Gain, Offset, CMRR, Linearity, 0.1% Matching)• AC Tests (Transfer Function, CMRR, Slew Rate, Linearity)• SPB - Deploy Length, Turns Count, Deploy Rate, Door Actuation, Door Function,

Deploy Currents, Cable Continuity and Isolation• AXB - Deploy Length, Repeatability, Stiffness, Straightness, Deploy Current, Cable

Continuity and Isolation

• EFI/SCM/FGM via DFB Phase Intercalibration - performed using EFI Test/Enable Plugs, SCM Mu-Metal Box, FGM TCU and 12-channel, 16-bit, +/- 10-V National Instruments DAC system – TO BE COMPLETED THIS WEEK




• Calibration Status: • ETU completed• F1 test and calibration December 2004 (SPBs)• F1 test and calibration early January 2005 (AXB)

• Performance Tests performed on ETU:• Quiescent and Operational Currents• DC Tests (Gain, Offset, CMRR, Linearity, 0.1% Matching)• AC Tests (Transfer Function, CMRR, Slew Rate, Linearity)• SPB - Deploy Length, Turns Count, Deploy Rate, Door Actuation, Door Function,

Deploy Currents, Cable Continuity and Isolation• AXB - Deploy Length, Repeatability, Stiffness, Straightness, Deploy Current, Cable

Continuity and Isolation

• EFI/SCM/FGM via DFB Phase Intercalibration - performed using EFI Test/Enable Plugs, SCM Mu-Metal Box, FGM TCU and 12-channel, 16-bit, +/- 10-V National Instruments DAC system – TO BE COMPLETED THIS WEEK




• Verification of MRD Requirements: • All MRD requirements verified on first flight units• Resolution, Range, Noise Level verified• Driving Requirements:

• Changes to design from ETU to improve performance:• None


IN.EFI-11 The EFI noise level shall be below 10^-4 mV/m/sqrt(Hz).

IN.EFI-13 The EFI shall achieve an accuracy better than 10% or 1mV/m in the SC XY E-field components during times of onset.



Integration and Environmental Test Program Overview

Jeremy McCauley



Overview

Agenda• Facilities Status – Integration and Environmental

• Instrument I&T Flow

• Instrument Suite I&T Flow

• Current Status (PER topics)


Facilities - Integration

B20 Cleanroom• Suite Performance and Environment Testing


Facilities - Integration

RM 125 Cleanroom• Suite Integration and Electrical Verification


Thermal Chambers• Space Sciences Lab • New Chamber for EFI Booms• Cal Chamber Upgrade for SST

Vibration Facilities• Quanta Labs

EMI/EMC• EMCE Engineering – Freemont

Facilities - Environmental

Available Chambers TypeSLW HiBay L1 TV STEREOSLW HiBay L2 TV STEREOSLW 320 T10 TV STEREOSLW 320 Cal Vac ESA CalSLW 320 “Mini” TV SCM, Bake-outsSLW B20-TV “Bayside” TV EFI PA, SPB, IDPUSLW B20-Large TV TV Payload TVSLW B20-Cal VAC2 Vac SST CalSLW B20-TV “Snout” TV

Comment

SLW 339-TV CalAXB, SST ESA MCPs


Status – TV Facilities

Bayside Chamber• Currently supporting thermal vacuum needs

• IDPU ETU

• EFI PA ETU and F1-F3

• SPB ETU and subassemblies



Bertha Chamber• In final stages of assembly• Undergoing TC calibration• Undergoing bakeout with TQCM and RGA monitoring

• Current baseline 242Hz/hour at 50°C

• Ready for ETU Suite test by January 1



Snout Chamber• In final stages of assembly

• Undergoing TC calibration

• Undergoing bakeout with TQCM and RGA monitoring

• Ready for AXB ETU test by December 13

Cal Chamber• Currently supporting SST calibration


Unit (SPB) Test Flow


Instrument (EFI) I&T Flow

EFI Pre-AmpThermal

EFI Pre-AmpDelivery

• Swales Spec

EFI RADIAL BOOM (SPB)

EFI PRE-AMP

• 2 cycles

EFI ELECTRONICS(BEB and DFB)

SPBVibration

• Swales Spec

SPBThermal

• 2 cycles T-V• Hot/Cold Deploy

SPBDelivery

EFI Pre-AmpFunctional

IDPU/ESA/SCM Pre-Amp

Vibration

• Without sensors

IDPU/ESAThermal

• 2 cycles T-V

IDPU/ESADelivery

• Swales Spec

AXBVibration

• Swales Spec

AXBThermal

• 2 cycles T-V• Hot/Cold Deploy

AXBDelivery EFI AXIAL BOOM (AXB)

SPBPER

SPB/Pre-AmpFunctional

AXBPER

AXB/Pre-AmpFunctional

IDPUSafe-to-Mate

BEBAcceptance EFI

Functional(Level 0)

• BackplaneDFB

Acceptance

IDPU/ESAPER


F1 Instrument Suite I&T Flow

FGMFunctional

(CPT)

HarnessBake-out

IDPU-HarnessSafe-to-Mate

PayloadThermal

ESAFunctional

(CPT)

• Feb 24

PayloadVibration

PayloadAcceptance

(PSR) • Workmanship (if necessary)

EFI SPBDeploy

EFIFunctional

(CPT)

PayloadCPT

• Jan 3-4• ETU IDPU

SCMFunctional

(CPT)

SSTFunctional

(CPT)

• Jan 5-6

• Jan 17

• Feb 10-16

InstrumentPER

PayloadEMI/EMC/MAG

PayloadSelf-Compat

• Feb 17-23

• Jan 31 - Feb 1

EFIFunctional

(LPT)

• Jan 7-10 • Jan 11-12

• Jan 13-14 • Jan 18-19 • Jan 20 • Jan 21

• Jan 24

MagAlignment

EFI AXBDeploy

Mag BoomDeploy

Flight IDPUIntegration

• Jan 27-28• Jan 25-26 • Feb 2

• Feb 9 (1 week slack)

• Instrument Suite I&T in order of Instrument Delivery schedule• Based on 5 day work weeks, week-ends considered slack• 1 week slack between finish of Electrical Integration and beginning of Instrument Environmentals• Instrument Suite PSR 3/14/05

EFI/SCM/FGMPhasing


Integration Set-up

Instruments at SSL integrated on platform same form factor as probe

INSTRUMENT PAYLOAD ASSEMBLY PLATE


• Schedule – Instrument Payload Delivery• P1: 3/14/05 (Instrument PSR)

• P2: 4/19/05

• P3: 4/19/05

• P4: 5/25/05

• P5: 5/25/05

With each instrument suite we deliver harnesses, GSE computer, booms, sensors in protection boxes.

• Support Instrument GSE• Purge equipment including tubing and regulator

• Degausser

• Magnetometer

• Oxygen sensor

Instrument Delivery to SC


Flight Instrument Status

Instrument Environmental Testing

ETU F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

EFI PA X X X T

AXB X

SPB X T

SST X

ESA

IDPU X

Mag Booms

T

FGM X T T T

SCM X T T T

Suite

X – Completed, T – Test in Progress

- Board level screening

- PER 12/1/04



Instrument Environmental Testing – PER• Required prior to environmental testing of flight units• Topics covered include:

• Status of the Flight Instrument: • A flow chart of testing activities• Review of travelers and QA assessment• List of outstanding deviances from the final flight

configuration (electrical substitutions, mechanical checks, etc.; responsible party)

• Functional tests passed and documented• Assure the unit meets all functional requirements as posed

in the MRD• Assure contamination and cleanliness precautions are

sufficient• Status of Procedures: Vibration Test Procedure, Thermal

Vacuum Cycling Procedure, LPT and CPT procedures



Instrument Environmental Testing – PER• Topics covered include:

• Related Risks:

• Outstanding ETU tasks

• Status of action items from previous reviews

• Facilities:

• Is there a suitable spot in the facilities schedule for these test in the near future?

• Is the Facilities Team able to support this test? (resources, configuration, personnel)



Vibration Test ProgramPaul Turin



Vibration Testing

• Flight Instruments undergo sine and random vibration testing to the levels called out in Swales TM-2430-RevD6 per UCB Instrument Test Procedures

• ETUs were tested to the levels called out in Swales TM-2508, TM-2510, and TM2575-2• Updated levels in TM-2430 have somewhat higher Grms levels but reflect a

redistribution to higher ASD levels at low frequencies where motion is all rigid body, and lower levels at the 100-300 Hz peak. Thus, Swales does not feel we need to retest any instruments.

• Each test is preceded and followed by a 0.5g sine survey• Each test is compared for significant shifts in peak frequency

• The minimum resonant frequency required for THEMIS instruments is listed below. This will be verified during the sine surveys.

Table 2.1 Minimum Resonant Frequency Components Stowed > 75 Hz

Deployed > 0.25 Hz


IDPU/ESA ETU

SST ETU

ETU Testing

Test Date Facility Reason for Retest / Changes from Previous Configuration

Test Result

1 6/9/04 WYLE Baseline Design FAIL: Excessive Deflection. ESA Covers came loose.

2 8/18/04 QUANTA Increased thickness of IDPU connector plate. Replaced out of spec cover pre-load spring.

FAIL: ESA SMA failed

3 10/5/04 QUANTA Changed SMA assembly procedure

PASS


Test Result

1 6/16/04 QUANTA Baseline Design TEST INADEQUATE: Incorrect notching

(FM1 will be tested to Qual Levels)


ETU Testing

SCM Sensor ETU

SCM Pre-Amp ETU

FGM Sensor ETU (F6)


Test Result

1 8/12/04 IAS Baseline Design PASS


Test Result

1 5/24/04 IAS Baseline Design PASS


Test Result

1 6/25/04 TIRAVIB Baseline Design PASS


ETU Testing

SPB ETU


Test Result

1 6/9/04 QUANTA Baseline Design FAIL: Low first mode frequency; Sphere damaged due to inadequate preload of release doors

2 6/30/04 QUANTA Added Stiffening Brace, Verified Preload during Assembly

PASS

3 10/15/04 QUANTA Retest due to design changes: Added Counterweights to Front Doors; Added Ring Lock Lever.

FAIL: Door released during vibration

4 10/18/04 QUANTA Counterweights removed FAIL: Retaining Ring Lock Lever bent during test

5 11/4/04 QUANTA Counterweights removed; Release Ring Spring added; Removed Ring Lock Lever

PASS


AXB ETU

MAG BOOM ETU

ETU Testing


Test Result

1 4/23/04 QUANTA Baseline Design PASS

2 Planned mid-Dec

QUANTA Retest planned due to significant design changes


Test Result

1 10/8/04 QUANTA Bread Board Design PRELIM TEST: verifying first mode frequency

2 10/29/04 QUANTA Baseline Design TEST INADEQUATE: Not able to perform required notching

(FM1 will be tested to Qual Levels)


Random Vibration

• All instruments will be tested to the random vibration loads shown in Table 2.4.1 to Table 2.4.10 below. The boundary of inner and outer portion of bottom deck is the interface circle of upper ring.

• Depending on the ETU test history and level of fidelity to the flight models, the FM1 units will be tested to either qualification or acceptance levels, and the subsequent builds to acceptance levels.

EFI SPB, IDPU and ESA, SCM Preamp• All flight units except IDPU FM1 will tested to Acceptance levels. FM1 IDPU

will be tested to Qual levels as the ETU did not have populated boards.

Table 2.4.3 Random Vibration Spec For Components Mounted at Outer Portion of Bottom Deck Includes EFI Radial, IDPU, ESA, Gyro, and Sun Sensor

Frequency (Hz)

Qualification (G^2/Hz)

Protoflight (G^2/Hz)

Acceptance (G^2/Hz)

20 0.02 0.02 0.01

60 – 200 0.12 0.12 0.06 300 – 500 0.08 0.08 0.04

2000 0.02 0.02 0.01

Overall Grms 11.55 11.55 7.09 Duration (mins) 2 1 1


Random Vibration

Magnetometer Booms, Magnetometers (FGM and SCM)• FM1 booms will be tested to Qualification levels due to changes in the design

and the need to test the mag ETUs on the booms. Based on results seen on FM1 boom, Flight mags may be re-tested on Flight booms. All subsequent FMs will be tested to Acceptance levels.

Table 2.4.4 Random Vibration Spec For FGM and SCM Frequency

(Hz) Qualification

(G^2/Hz) Protoflight (G^2/Hz)

Acceptance (G^2/Hz)

20 0.02 0.02 0.01

40 - 90 0.20 0.20 0.10 110 – 300 0.40 0.40 0.20 400 – 600 0.20 0.20 0.10

1000 - 2000 0.06 0.06 0.03

Overall Grms 16.30 16.30 11.54 Duration (mins) 2 1 1


Random Vibration

SSTs• FM1 SSTs will be tested to Qualification levels due to out-of-spec notching

that was performed on the ETU. All subsequent FMs will be tested to Acceptance levels.

Table 2.4.5 Random Vibration Spec For SST Frequency

(Hz) Qualification


Acceptance (G^2/Hz)

20 0.02 0.02 0.01

40 –180 0.20 0.20 0.10 210 – 315 0.60 0.60 0.30

450 – 1000 0.08 0.08 0.04 1250 - 2000 0.14 0.14 0.07

Overall Grms 17.67 17.67 12.51

Duration (mins) 2 1 1


Random Vibration

EFI AXBs• AXBs will be tested to Acceptance levels.

Table 2.4.7 Random Vibration Spec For EFI Axial Frequency

(Hz) Qualification


Acceptance (G^2/Hz)

20 0.02 0.02 0.01

40 – 60 0.40 0.40 0.20 70 – 125 0.60 0.60 0.30

200 – 500 0.08 0.08 0.04 800 - 2000 0.05 0.05 0.025

Overall Grms 13.01 13.01 9.21

Duration (mins) 2 1 1


Sine Vibration

Table 2.5.5 Qualification Sine Specification For Components Axis Frequency (Hz) Level (g) Sweep Rate

5 - 17.7 0.5" DA 17.7 - 25 8.00

2 oct/min

25 - 35 8.00 0.75 oct/min X,Y

35 - 50 8.00 2 oct/min 5 - 5.4 0.5" DA

5.4 - 10 0.75 10 - 12 32.4 dB/oct 12 - 20 2.00 20 - 25 15.2 dB/oct

2 oct/min

25 - 35 3.50 0.75 oct/min 35 - 40 37.2 dB/oct

Z

40-50 8.00 2 oct/min

• All Instruments will be tested to the sine vibration loads shown in Tables 2.5.5 and 2.5.7.

• IDPU, Magbooms, and SST FM1s will be tested to Qualification Levels


Sine Vibration

• All other flight units will be tested to Acceptance Levels

Table 2.5.7 Acceptance Sine Specification For Components Axis Frequency (Hz) Level (g) Sweep Rate

5 - 15.8 0.5" DA 15.8 - 25 6.40

4 oct/min

25 - 35 6.40 1.5 oct/min X,Y

35 - 50 6.40 4 oct/min 5 - 10 0.60

10 - 12 32.4 dB/oct 12 - 20 1.60 20 - 25 15.2 dB/oct

4 oct/min

25 - 35 2.80 1.5 oct/min 35 - 40 37.2 dB/oct

Z

40 - 50 6.40 4 oct/min



Thermal Test ProgramChris Smith



Thermal Testing Outline

Thermal Vacuum Cycle Accumulation• 2 cycles at instrument level - constrained by schedule• 6 cycles at instrument suite level• 4 cycles at spacecraft level• 12 cycles total for every flight instrument• 4 hour soaks at hot and cold targets

Thermal Balance• Done on one flight or flight like unit only at the instrument level• Instrument level balance verifies conductance, absorptance, and

emittance properties• Instrument thermal design is verified at the probe level on P1


Thermal Limits

• Eclipse Operation / Turn On limits are for periods where the instrument will be on but need not be calibrated to collect science data

Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot

AXB Mechanical Units -65 65 -25 30 -65 80

EFI PreAmp -65 80 -125 80 -125 80

ESA -30 45 -30 45 -50 55 -35 65 -30 45

IDPU -30 45 -30 45 -50 55

SCM Preamp -30 45 -30 45 -50 55

SST -55 45 -55 40 -55 45

SPB Mechanical Units -45 45 -20 45 -45 45

FGM Sensor -80 65 -100 65 -100 65

FGM Outer Boom -130 100 -40 45 -130 100

FGM Elbow Hinge -130 100 -40 45 -130 100

FGM Frangibolt -65 65 -40 45

SCM Sensor -85 65 -85 65 -85 65

SCM Boom -130 100 -40 45 -130 100

SCM Deck Hinge -130 100 -40 45 -130 100

SCM Frangibolts -65 65 -40 45

Deployment Post DeploymentInstrument

Pre DeploymentScience Operation SurvivalEclipse Operation /

Turn On


Thermal Verification Levels

•Thermal Analysis results must be 5 degrees inside limits

•Acceptance/ Qualification tests are 10 degrees outside of limits

•Heater duty cycle will be 50% or less in coldest case at lowest voltage

Max Predict

Op

Lim

it s

Min Predict

>5°C

>5°C

10°C

10°C

Qu

alif

ica

ti on

/ A

c ce

pt a

nc e


ESA/IDPU Thermal Testing Status

• Overcurrent limit on first hot cycle of ETU. Replaced Shotkey diode in LVPS.


FGM Thermal Testing Status

• F4 FGS was not conductively mounted correctly in first qualification test. Retest will be done in air at limits shown


SCM Thermal Testing Status

• Thin crack in the potting for two antennas during first ETU test. Potting method reworked and retested


SCM/FGM Boom Thermal Testing Status

• Booms will be balanced with flight or ETU sensors


SST Thermal Testing Status

• ITO coated silver teflon thermal control tape with 9703 conductive adhesive currently in thermal vac testing

• Testing will measure conductivity over expected temperature ranges and adhesion


EFI PreAmp Thermal Testing Status

• ETU 1 Preamp had no problems but FR4 board was switched to Thermount 85 NT for ETU 2 and flight

• Six ETU 2 Qual Units went through 24 cycles, Two of those units continue to add cycles and are currently at 30. They are expected to accumulate 36 complete cycles.

• Upper limit recently changed from 65 to 90 after the receipt of optical property testing results.


EFI PreAmp Thermal Testing Setup


EFI SPB Thermal Testing Status

• Qual ETU motor was a motor only stress test, no problems seen• SPB design changed from flying with doors closed to flying with doors open. ETU was

retested after the small modifications this required• Calibration runs will be done with all of the sphere keyreels to determine release tension

at hot and cold deployment conditions


EFI AXB Thermal Testing Status

• No problems experienced in deploy tests


Instrument Suite Thermal Testing Status



EMC/MAG Test ProgramMichael Ludlam



EMC Test Plan

EMC levels for E have been calculated by UCB and documented in “THEMIS Environmental Design Specification SAI-SPEC-1148 Revision – A”. H field levels are located in the magnetic test plan (reference on page 7 of these slides). These levels have been fixed since early 2004.

Instrument suite EMC test will be performed at EMCE in Fremont, CA on FM1. Both Radiated and Conducted Emissions and Susceptibility will be measured.

Subsequent EMC testing (on FM2-6) will be done at bench level at UCB – conducted E-field only.


EMC Narrowband E-Field

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09 1.00E+10 1.00E+11

Frequency (Hz)

dBm V

/m

20 Hz

Payload Subsystems, Components and Instruments

Payload

1.770 GHz

2.300 GHz

18 GHz

408 MHz

430 MHz

38.5


EMC Broadband E-Field

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09 1.00E+10 1.00E+11

Frequency (Hz)

dBm V

/m/M

Hz

14 kHz

Payload Subsystems, Components and Instruments

Payload

1.770 GHz

2.300 GHz 18 GHz

65

55


EMC H-Field

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Frequency

dB

pT

Themis Search Coil SensitivityFAST SpecTHEMIS Spec


ETU Instrument Tests

IDPU ETU is finished initial testing and has also undergone some limited EMC testing on the bench.

Results from these tests show that the EFI instrument is sensitive to noise conducted onto the 28V power rails with a ripple above 500mV p-p.

Initial testing on the SCM instrument indicates that at lower frequencies no disturbance is seen at 200mV p-p. Further testing will be done this week.

No instrument to instrument disturbance has been recorded at ETU level.


Mag Test Plan

DC Fields

Detailed Magnetics Control Plan (ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/THEMIS/1 Management/1.3 Systems Engineering/1. Requirements/thm_sys_002d_Magnetic Cleanliness.pdf)

Early problem component identification and testing

Modelling of instrument fields

Magnetic mapping of all units before installation onto probes

Deperming of tools for flight model assembly and integration

AC Fields

Careful implementation of Magnetics Control Plan recommendations e.g. twisting of power and return lines in harnesses.

Currently there are no instrument AC fields issues

Final check during S/C EMC test.


Magnetic Coil Facility

Used for instrument mapping and deperming



Reliability and Quality AssuranceRon Jackson



Agenda • Responsibilities of Quality Assurance prior to and during Instrument I&T• EEE Parts Status• Failure Reporting• Test Plan and Procedure Status• Design Reliability Analysis Status

Quality Assurance Team• Ron Jackson Mission Assurance Manager• Jorg FisherQuality Assurance Engineer• Chris Scholz Quality Control Engineer• Tom Clemons Quality Control Technician

Overview


1.) Review and Report on Quality Status for Flight Hardware Build:• Evaluate/Audit contractors facilities for the ability to consistently produce quality flight hardware daily• Equipment calibration, temperature and humidity monitors• Clean room controls• Compliance to ESD requirements• Workmanship procedures/processes• Material handling and shelf life material storage• Data packages and logbooks• Nonconformance reporting / Problem reports• Assembly instruction / BOM• Personnel training and certification to NASA standards

2.) Support Integration and Test Activities:• Verify test set ups at board/instrument and spacecraft levels• Monitor thermal testing at Box/instrument and spacecraft levels• Witness vibration testing at instrument and spacecraft levels• Verify magnetics testing at instrument levels• All European suppliers – UCB shall review Acceptance Package Data / Travelers and inspect

component/Box upon delivery to U.S.

Responsibilities


3.) Provide electrical and mechanical inspections but not limited to: • Incoming materials• Solder workmanship, through hole and SMT methods (verify coupon acceptance)• Conformal coating and staking applications• Witness board or Box closure• Wire harness build, continuity test, Hi-pot testing and routing• Configuration verification, as designed vs. as built

4.) Monitor UCB Contamination Control:• Class 100k clean room• Air particle count will be monitored• All flight hardware will be placed in clean bags

Responsibilities


• Current version of PIL THM_ee_parts_rev37.xls on shared database • 100% of EEE Parts have been procured to approved list• 100% of EEE Parts are in stock, except

• HS 508: quantity in stock not sufficient for all flight units, more have been ordered, expected to be in stock by need date for later flight units

• RH1013MH: replacement part for AD648, requested by FGM to improve noise measurements, expected Dec 10, 2004

• 100% of EEE Part Up-Screening has been completed, except 2 capacitors for LVPS (currently at GSFC)

• Parts Issues• RT54SX72S Actel FPGAs: 66 flight FPGAs required for Instrument Flight build.

100 MEC Parts In-house, 20 UMC Parts on-order for spare trade (8 week lead time)

EEE Parts Status


Failure Reporting

• All failures that occur during flight testing are documented at time of problem using UCB Problem Failure Report (PFR)• PFR documents impact, assesses alternative and provides recommended course of

action• PFR is closed after corrective action has been taken and results reviewed• Mission Assurance Manager (Ron Jackson), Project Manager (Peter Harvey) Mission

Systems Engineer (Ellen Taylor), and Cognizant Engineering sign-off and record date of closure

• 3 PFRs have been logged to date for Instruments• PFR 001: 3 Actels failed on BEB ETU. Analysis for overstress was completed. Flight

design was changed to add termination resistors. Status: CLOSED. • PFR 002: SCM Pre-Amp Cal signal for FM3 was not as expected. Determined problem

was due to wrong resistor value. Pre-Amp will not be re-furbished, but used spare model. Status: CLOSED.

• PFR 003: Overflow of Low Telemetry data occurred during FM1 FGE testing. Corrected by minor change to FPGA. FPGA replaced with new design and tested. Status: CLOSED.


Instrument Test Procedures

• Assembly Procedures• MAM reviews flight assembly procedures• QA inspection points w/ UCB and GSFC Sign-Off

• Flight Board Functional Test Procedures• MSE reviews flight board functional test procedures• Most flight board functional test procedures are in final form • Flight board testing has started on BEB, DAP, DFB, PCB, DCB (this week), FGE• Test procedures and GSE scripts are run on ETU boards prior to Flight boards

• Environmental Test Procedures• MAM, MSE and PM review Environmental Test Procedures at Instrument PERs• MAM, MSE and Instrument Lead sign-off on Procedures prior to test• Lead Mechanical and Thermal review on Vibration and Thermal Vacuum Levels• To date, one UCB PER has occurred for the flight SPBs

• THM-SPB-PRO-420 Vertical Acceptance Testing of SPB Flight Units: Signed-Off• THM-SPB-PRO-423 Acceptance Vibration Testing of SPB Flight Units: Signed-Off• THM-SPB-PRO-424 Thermal Vacuum Testing of SPB Flight Units


Reliability EngineeringFault Tree Analysis (thm_sys_016_FTA)

• Current Version provided at Mission CDR

Probability Risk Assessment (thm_sys_017_PRA)• Current Version provided at Mission CDR

Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analyses (thm_sys_007_FMECA)• Additional Analyses performed as identified and tracked in FMECA worksheet


Actel Reviews

• Actel Review Status:

Actel Reviewer Status Flight Part Burned?

BEB Baja Engineering Review Complete. Changes Incorporated.

Yes

DFB (3) Baja Engineering Documentation and ETU Testing Complete. Sent to Baja for Review.

No

DCB SWRI Review Complete. Comments being Evaluated.

No

PCB Baja Engineering Review Complete. Changes Incorporated.

No

ETC Baja Engineering Documentation and ETU Testing >95% Complete. Design will be sent mid-Dec.

No

DAP UCB Documentation and ETU Testing Complete. Review started.

No

FGE Internal by TUBS Initial Flight Part Functional Test Complete. Burn-In Testing On-going.

Yes