A'Gianolio LISA status 1

1
LISA Status LISA France College de
France January 20-21, 2005 A. Gianolio LISA
Project Manager
2

• Following a year of discussion, a programmatic
  agreement for the LISA project has been reached
  between ESA and NASA in August 2004
• WHY WAS SUCH AN AGREEMENT NECESSARY ?
• The interface between experiment and spacecraft
  in LISA is such that the experiment drives the
  mission design.
• System Engineering needs to extend deep into the
  definition of the mission elements.
• The mission reference architecture has to be
  defined during Mission Formulation in order to
  finalize the share of responsibility.
• Consequently, all major system engineering
  decisions have to be agreed by both ESA and NASA.
• The way this is implemented requires to be
  formalized within an inter-agency agreement.

3
Decisions

• ESA considers it essential that during the whole
  mission and in particular during mission
  formulation
• no decision affecting overall mission performance
  
• no decision affecting technical design, early
  technological investment, cost and schedule of
  the other partner
• can be taken by one partner without explicit and
  well informed consensus by the other partner.

4
Organization principles

• Single project with parallel organizational
  structures in each agency.
• Each agency is responsible for discharging its
  obligations.
• Each agencys project team responds to his own
  management.
• A high degree of interaction is required of the
  two agencies.

5
Mission phases

• Two mission phases can be identified
• FORMULATION
• Definition of mission and system requirements
  and of mission architecture
• IMPLEMENTATION
• Procurement of deliverables that fulfil the
  above requirements
• Additionally ESA will introduce the
• DEFINITION
• Industrial competitive phase to perform the
  preliminary design of the ESA deliverables and
  select the prime contractor for Implementation

6
ESA-NASA Agreement

• The main elements of the agreement are
• Project description
• Project organisation
• System Engineering functions
• Mission elements share
• The Project description defines the general terms
  to be adopted throughout the project

7
Definitions

• LISA Scientific Complement it includes the LISA
  Optomechanical Core Systems (LOCS), the LISA
  Instrument Metrology and Avionics System (LIMAS),
  the associated control software, microthrusters
  (TBC)
• Sciencecraft one spacecraft bus with its LISA
  Scientific Complement
• Constellation the three LISA sciencecraft
  operating together.
• Joint Project Managers Office (JPMO) LISA
  project management office composed of the ESA and
  the NASA project managers and their management
  support, chaired jointly by the ESA and the NASA
  project managers.

8
Definitions

• Mission System Engineering (MSE) system
  engineering team co-chaired by the ESA, the GSFC
  and the JPL Mission System Engineering Managers,
  who have equal authority and report to the JPMO.
  MSE merges the system engineering teams of ESA,
  GSFC and JPL.
• Mission System Engineering Advisory Team (MSEAT)
  small advisory body to the Mission System
  Engineering.
• Integrated Technical Advisory Teams (ITAT)
  technical teams commissioned ad hoc by MSE to
  provide inputs in specific areas.

9
MF Project Organisation
The ESA and the NASA project managers share equal
responsibility in the management of the project
The JPMO, led by the ESA and the NASA project
managers, is in charge of the overall project
The JPMO has to approve, inter alia, the mission
reference design and the requirements
The project will adopt, as far as possible, a
single set of procedures, documentation and
reviews
10
Programmatic

• The description of the System Engineering
  functions constitutes a fundamental step forward
  in the cooperation
• it identifies the functions in Formulation and in
  Implementation
• it sanctions the principle that the mission
  design has to be done jointly, to the level
  required to clearly define the responsibility of
  each agency
• It establishes that decisions affecting the
  project cannot be taken unilaterally by one
  Agency
• The implementing structure foresees three SE
  managers working together to define mission
  requirements and reference architecture, to be
  submitted to the approval of the two project
  managers

11
ITATs

• ITATs are created by the SE Mgrs upon need and
  they can be dissolved once the task is completed.
• Their charter is defined by the SE Mgrs
• The ITATs composition is defined by the SE Mgrs
  and can be modified during the existence of the
  ITAT.
• Each ITAT has have a chair appointed by the SE
  Mgrs
• The ITATs can call upon the support of experts
  for the fulfilment of their charter.
• The ITAT chair can, if necessary, advise the SE
  Mgrs on the need to create a subgroup to address
  specific issues.
• Currently three ITATs are active the DRS, the
  IMS and the Constellation

12
DRS ITAT

• The DRS/GRS ITAT is chartered to provide the SE
  office the following inputs
• GRS reference architecture and options
• DRS reference architecture and options
• Overall acceleration noise error budget
• DRS requirements flowdown
• GRS Risk List
• GRS test (validation and verification) plan
• DRS test (simulation) plan
• Composition S. Vitale (chair), M. Sallusti, S.
  Buchman, S. Merkowitz, T. Hyde

13
IMS ITAT

• The IMS ITAT is chartered by the SE office to
  perform the following tasks
• Initially define the IMS architecture including
  options
• Define interface between the IMS subsystems
• Develop an error budget
• Identify areas that require technology
  development
• Develop a prioritized IMS risk list
• Develop an IMS test plan
• Define a constellation frequency plan for the
  space-space segment
• Composition O.Jennrich (chair), K.Danzmann, P.
  McNamara, G.Heinzel, D.Shaddock, T.Stebbins,
  P.Bender, D.Robertson, T.Hyde (obs)

14
Constellation ITAT

• The Constellation ITAT is chartered by the SE
  office to perform the following tasks
• Define constellation concept (functions, system)
• Identify DF interfaces to IMS and GRS
• Define control requirements on micropropulsion
  subsystem
• Define constellation acquisition strategy and
  relative requirements on DRS and IMS subsystems
• Composition M.Sallusti (co-chair), S.Merkowitz
  (co-chair), T.Hyde, D.Bortoluzzi, J.Zeimer

15
Programmatic - SW

• The agreement for SW includes the following
• Software algorithms and the corresponding code to
  the level of e.g. MatLab routines will be defined
  and maintained by MSE throughout the mission
  lifetime.
• Each Agency will independently verify and
  validate all mission software developed by the
  other Agency.
• Each Agency will exchange models required to
  support design, verification, validation and
  operations with the other Agency.
• If any of the points above requires specific
  clearances, NASA will promptly start the required
  process.

16
ESA Contribution

• Under the current agreement, ESA is responsible
  to deliver the LISA Opto-mechanical Core System
  (LOCS)
• The LOCS includes the following
• Gravitational Reference System (GRS)
• Structures
• Optics
• Laser Subsystem
• Additionally ESA may deliver three Propulsion
  Modules (PM).

17
GRS

• ESA supplies
• Charge Management System
• Vacuum Enclosure
• GRS Analog Electronics
• JPL supplies
• Test Mass
• Caging Mechanism
• Electrode Housing
• GRS Digital Electronics (TBC)
• ESA integrates the GRS

18
Structures

• ESA supplies
• GRS OB Telescope Alignment Structure
• Y- Tube
• Instrument Thermal Insulation/Control

19
Optics

• ESA supplies
• Optical Bench (OB)
• JPL supplies
• Photodiodes
• CCDs
• Star Trackers

20
Laser Subsystem

• ESA supplies
• Laser
• Modulator
• Laser Stabilisation

21
ESA Contribution AIV

• ESA integrates, verifies and delivers three LOCS
  to JPL.
• ESA supports NASA during all system level LOCS
  integration and testing activities.
• ESA supports the end to end system verification
  at GSFC and at the launch site.

22
ESA Contribution Ops SW

• ESA supports in-orbit commissioning activities
  and nominal operations.
• ESA performs the Software Independent
  Verification and Validation for all flight
  software.

23
JPL Contribution

• JPL will be responsible to deliver the LISA
  Instrument Metrology and Avionics System (LIMAS).
• The LIMAS includes the following
• Frequency Distribution Subsystem
• Phase Measurement Subsystem
• Metrology System CDH
• Metrology System Flight Software

24
JPL Contribution - AIV

• JPL develops, integrates and verifies three LIMAS
  assemblies.
• JPL integrates the three ESA-delivered LOCS onto
  the three LIMAS and verifies them.
• JPL verifies Operation and Performance of the
  three LOCS/LIMAS assemblies with the support of
  ESA.

25
GSFC Contribution

• GSFC will be responsible to deliver the
  following
• Spacecraft Bus including subsystems
• Constellation Software (drag-free and
  acquisition)
• Microthrusters (TBC)

26
GSFC Contribution - AIV

• GSFC integrates and verifies three Spacecraft
  Buses.
• GSFC integrates and verifies the three LISA
  Scientific Complements (LOCS LIMAS Control
  Software Microthrusters) onto the three Buses.
• GSFC integrates and verifies the three Propulsion
  Modules.

27
NASA Contribution

• NASA procures the launch vehicle (Delta IV)
• NASA performs operations via the DSN

28
Mission Formulation

• ESA has started an industrial contract with
  Astrium GmbH for the LISA Mission Formulation on
  January 17, 2005
• The activity will last two years and is divided
  into two phases, lasting respectively 9 and 15
  months
• Regular Milestones have been set to ensure
  consistent system design and to phase work with
  NASA
• Each phase is concluded with a review (Mission
  Architecture and Mission Definition Review
  respectively)
• Additionally, a Mid-term Review will take place
  in the middle of phase 2

29
MF tasks

• Astrium will support ESA in the consolidation of
• Mission constituents and their interfaces
• Model philosophy
• Error budget apportionment and allocation to the
  constituents
• Risk assessment and risk management plans
• Mission Requirements in order to allow entering
  the Definition Phase
• All the other elements required to support
  discussions with NASA on the share of
  responsibility

30
MF Phase 1

• The objective of this phase is to consolidate the
  LISA mission architecture and design.
• Main end products will be a complete set of
  draft Specs for the LISA mission elements, the
  DDVP, Budgets, Tech Plan
• Among others, the following specific points will
  be addressed in phase 1
• OB re-design and interfaces with IS
• telescope and structure
• Telescope pointing system
• P/L Avionic and I/F with S/C
• Error budget
• Constellation acquisition
• point ahead
• Critical review and analysis of the S/C and
  Propulsion Module design
• Mission scenario and Operations

31
MF Phase 2

• A reference design (mechanical, optical,
  electrical) for the mission elements will be
  produced.
• Product Tree, IRDs, Functional diagrams, Budgets
  will be consolidated
• Risk assessment and margin policy will be
  reviewed
• Environmental constraints will be reviewed
• Key technology identified and technology plan
  proposed
• MRD will be finalized and draft requirements
  documents for the mission elements will be
  prepared
• The requirements verification logic and methods
  will be established

32
MF Short term

• Short term (3 months scale) activities will
  concentrate on the following major architectural
  issues that have relevance in the definition of a
  set a requirements for the design
• Use of Telescope/CCD as a Star Tracker
• Acquisition and attitude control
• Alignment
• Point ahead angle
• Telescope design

33
Mission Formulation

• Mission Formulation has a different meaning at
  ESA and at NASA and care has to be exercised to
  avoid confusion

34
(No Transcript)
35
Data Processing

• European plan of activities
• Request Letter of Intent from interested parties.
• Plan to have algorithm in prototype form at the
  end of 4 yrs period.
• Need to the define the e2e data processing cycle
  with responsibilities and products at the various
  stages.

36
Data processing
1. Create ad-hoc data processing structure with
ESA chair 2. Define goals, plan of work,
schedule 3. ESA request sci community
LoI 4. Selection of scientists for participation
to data processing structure 5. SPC info paper
6. Mtg with selected parties to define plan of
work and required funding 7. Selected parties to
obtain national funding 8. ESA to place a
contract to study and define the LISA data
processing architecture
37
LISA Logo