' ' ' Bryant Cramer

1
Section 1 Introduction
. . . Bryant Cramer EO-1 Mission Implementation
Manager
2
Purpose of the Meeting

• Background
• Due to several recent failures, the NASA
  Administrator has requested a critical Red Team
  Review be conducted prior to the launch of all
  NASA missions
• Specific Objectives
• Enhance the probability of success by using
  additional technical expertise to review all
  critical aspects of these missions
• Identify all residual risk that could
  significantly affect mission success
• Assess all single-point failure mechanisms
• Prepare an overall mission risk assessment

3
Red Team Structure

• Chairman (Bill Taylor) and 8 members
• Ray Hook
• Ann Merwarth
• Joe Nieberding
• Jean Olivier
• Ken Sizemore
• Ron Thomas
• Ute Ingrid (Judi) vonMehlem
• Flight Assurance Specialist

4
Red Team Schedule

• Primary Red Team Review March 28-31, 2000
• Ideally, the Red Team Review would occur after
  the Final Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT)
  and before shipping the Spacecraft to the launch
  site
• Due to the WARP recovery, we have not finished
  the final CPT
• However, due to the volume of material to be
  reviewed, we will proceed with the Red Team
  Review -- but, subdivide it into a Primary Review
  (today) and a subsequent Follow-Up Review
• Chairman to verbally consult with members and
  provide a verbal recommendation to GSFC Deputy
  Center Director as to how EO-1 should proceed
  with the final IT
• Each member will provide a written report to the
  chairman within six days of review

5
Red Team Schedule (continued)

• The Follow-up Review will likely occur in
  Mid-May
• After final CPT (5/7-12/00) and before shipping
  (5/31/00)
• Report on work finished after primary Red Team
  Review
• Present any work not completed in first Review
• Results of final CPT
• Final closure of open paper
• Readiness to ship and begin the launch campaign
• Responses to RFAs from the Primary Red Team Review

6
Red Team Charter (1 of 3)

• Basic Approach
• The mission is subdivided into mission elements
• 13 questions are then asked of each mission
  element as applicable
• EO-1 Mission Elements

7
Red Team Charter (2 of 3)

• Thirteen Questions
• 1) Verification Matrix of mission requirements
• 2) Level and thoroughness to which the test and
  verification program was implemented
• 3) Integration Test Results for the element
• 4) Operating time -- total and failure-free
• 5) Amount, level, and fidelity of mission
  simulations and launch / operations training
• 6) Subsystem-level Failure Modes and Effects
  Analysis
• 7) Identify all single-point failures leading to
  mission failure
• 8) Level, performance, and independence of system
  level reviews
• 9) Level, competence, and independence of
  technical peer reviews
• 10) Significant RFAs -- and their responses
• 11) Level of product assurance that was imposed
  on the element
• 12) Systems Management Approach imposed on the
  element
• 13) Staffing and experience level of the element
  implementing organization

8
Red Team Charter (3 of 3)

• Red Team Responsibilities
• Review EO-1 mission in terms of the likelihood of
  completing the validation requirements of the
  EO-1 Minimal Mission
• Comment on the role of single string designs as a
  baseline for technology validation missions
• Red Teams estimate of the performance level
  achieved by the Project in meeting the 13 aspects
  of the developmental process
• Provide recommendations to improve the status
  where the Red Team feels the Projects
  performance is inadequate
• Ascertain and document all residual risks judged
  to be higher than low
• Assess all single-point failures and comment as
  to their acceptability
• Comment on the use of FMEA, FTA, and PRA by the
  Project
• Provide an overall risk statement

9
Compliance Approach

• Verification Matrix
• Test and Verification Program
• Integration Test Results
• Operating Time
• Mission Simulations Launch / Operations
  Training
• FMEA
• Single-Point Failures

• Presented initially in Section 7 (Verification
  Process) as a process with details being
  presented in each mission element
• Presented by each mission element
• Presented by each mission element including all
  significant test anomalies
• Presented in Section 7 (Verification Process)
• Presented in Section 33 (Operations)
• Process presented in Section 3 (Residual Risk)
  and details presented in Section 35 (Residual
  Risk Associated with the EO-1 Minimal Mission) to
  be presented at the Red Team Follow-Up Review
• Same as FMEA

10
Compliance Approach (continued)

• System-Level Reviews
• Technical Peer Reviews
• Significant RFAs
• Product Assurance
• Systems Management Approach
• Staffing and Experience

• Presented in Section 4 (System Reviews)
• Process discussed in Section 5 (Technical
  Reviews) and individual reviews presented in the
  mission elements
• Presented by mission elements
• Presented in Section 30 (Flight Assurance)
• Presented by individual mission elements except
  for the spacecraft where it is consolidated into
  Section 13 (Spacecraft System Management
  Approach)
• Staffing is presented in Section 6 (Staffing and
  Experience) and the level of experience is
  discussed in the individual mission elements.

11
Compliance Matrix

• Compliance Matrix has been completed
• To demonstrate compliance with the Red Team
  Charter
• To assist Red Team members in quickly finding
  relevant information
• Fundamentally functions as a detailed index
• Acronym list is also included
• Provided as a separate document

12
AgendaDay 1
TIME SECTION TOPIC PRESENTER 800 1 Introductio
n B. Cramer 820 2 Mission Overview D. Schulz
840 3 Residual Risk B. Cramer 910 4 System
s Reviews T. Klein 925 5 Technical Peer
Reviews P. Spidaliere 940 6 Staffing and
Experience T. Klein 955 7 Verification
Process M. Perry Lunch Served 1155 9 Flig
ht Software R. Whitley 200 10 Advanced Land
Imager C. Digenis 320 11 Hyperion S.
Carman 500 Adjourn
13
AgendaDay 2
TIME SECTION TOPIC PRESENTER 800 12 Atmospheri
c Corrector D. Reuter 850 13 Spacecraft Systems
Management Approach M. Perry 925 14 Mechanical
P. Alea 1025 15 Electrical B. Zink Lunch
Served 125 16 Thermal N. Teti 225 17 Power
A. Billings 345 18 Attitude Control System P.
Sanneman 715 Adjourn
14
AgendaDay 3
TIME SECTION TOPIC PRESENTER 800 19 Command
Data Handling P. Luers 915 20 Communications D.
Charlson 1055 21 Reaction Control System M.
McCullough 1145 22 Wideband Advanced Recorder
/ Processor T. Smith Lunch Served 225 23 X-B
and Phased Array Antenna K. Perko 255 24 Lightw
eight Flexible Solar Array J. Lyons 345 25 Puls
e Plasma Thruster C. Zakrzwski 430 26 Carbon-Ca
rbon Radiator G. Hobbs 500 27 Enhanced
Formation Flying D. Folta 540 28 Global
Position System D. Quinn 610 Adjourn
15
AgendaDay 4
TIME SECTION TOPIC PRESENTER 800 29 Contaminat
ion M. Woronowicz 830 30 Flight Assurance M.
Kelly 1000 31 Launch Vehicle KSC 1040 32 Lau
nch Campaign T. Gostomski 1120 33 Operations
/ MOC D. Mandl Lunch Served 220 34 Validati
on of Mission Technologies N. Speciale 250 36 M
ission Readiness Status D. Schulz 300 Adjourn

16
Where Are We Headed?

• EO-1 is a technology validation mission and not a
  small science mission
• Fundamental differences
• Shorter life on orbit
• Lesser dependence on flight data
• Timing IS important relative to technology
  infusion opportunities
• A single string design was a policy for EO-1 --
  and that is what we built
• Less complex
• Lower cost
• Shorter schedule
• BUT HIGHER RISK
• Judge us as to the likelihood of validating the
  EO-1 Minimal Mission
• How well have we managed our residual risks
  within existing constraints?
• Is the aggregate residual risk commensurate with
  our validation objectives?