01-1 Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009 FGS Status Report Partners workshop May 2009 Presentation...

01-1Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009

FGS Status ReportPartners workshop

May 2009

Presentation by:

TF PI – René Doyon (U de Mtl)

Project Manager – Karl Saad (CSA)

JWST-PRES-012903


Presentation Overview

1. Achievements since Last Partner’s Workshop

2. Project risks

- Top 5 risks and mitigation plan

3. Project Issues

4. Schedule status

- Schedule overview

- critical path

- Contingency

4. Science portion

- TFI

- Guider

5. Conclusion/summary


Achievements since last Partner’s Workshop

• Start of ETU integration activities

• ETU Guider ETU – TFI Mass Dummies



• Start of ETU integration activities (continued)

• ETU Hardware – procurement

• Optical Assembly harnesses from IMP received at COM DEV

• Some transitional harnesses from NASA received

Trial fit of TFI baffles



• 1st iteration of Cryo Pupil Alignment test• Encountered safety issues with the test set-up – these were corrected.• Results over temperature were not sufficiently accurate to definitively determine pupil

shear.• Thermal strap stiffness identified as significant source of fixture distortion during

temperature excursion to cryo.



Mechanisms – Fine Focus

• Design was reviewed & changed to address negative stress margin in flexible coupling (connecting link)

• Confirmed by testing

• Initial Characterization complete • Included cryogenic testing and low

level random vibration testing in both park and no-park positions.

• Parking preload removed from design.

• Mirror twist induced by parking preload was relatively high (>1 arc min). Mirror shall now be parked at nominal focus.



• Flight Software Development

• Provided ID and ACQ mode interim build (aka Build 3 interim);

• Successful prototyping of Etalon Control characterization algorithm with EM ECE and P0 Etalon;

• Held successful Build 3 Final Design Review, covering:

• TFI Functionality and interface with ISIM FSW;

• Guider fault management and updates.

• Completed coding of Build 3 and started HW/SW integration testing

• ETU – Electronics

• Started Detector & ASIC sub-assembly integration & testing

• Captured electrical baseline measurements

• Etalon CDR

• All RIDs(RFAs) closed.



PFM Activities

• MRR #1 held January 29, 2009

• KMs and Bench assembly

• KMs and Bench received from LHM

• KMs successfully proof-load tested

• Optical bench at COM DEV

PFM KM proof loading testPFM Optical bench at UCC for cleaning


PFM Activities (continued)

•PFM Pick-Off Mirror (POM) design is unchanged from ETU POM.

• Delivered to specification from Corning Netoptics• Cryo WFE test scheduled for June, 2009

•PFM Guider TMA in performance testing:

•PFM acceptance vibration test• Passed, WFE shift was less than

10nm over each field


PFM Pick-Off Mirrior

PFM Guider TMA under test



PFM Activities (continued)

• Dual Filter Wheel (DW) Mechanism• Life Test Unit (LTU) Geared motor testing at cryo completed.• Wheel assembly tests successfully performed under ambient

• Coarse Focus Mechanism – LTU• Assembly and integration on-going

• PFM Detector selection• All testing of SCA level FGS detectors has been completed.• FGS is left with 4 units to meet its need of 3 detectors (2 guider & 1 TFI) plus one

spare.• A Flight Model FPA manufacturing readiness review was at Teledyne. • Go ahead has been given to proceed with F016 as Detector PFM



• Ground Support Equipment• HITIF (Horizontal Integration Tool Interface Frame)

• Contract award end April and MRR held 13 May 09

• OGSE received and post delivery checks and alignment performed

As designed HITIF concept Removal of OGSE from its shipping container



• Ground Support Equipment

• FGS Electronics Simulator

• FGSES Sim #1 and #2 delivered to ISIM cert lab

• COM DEV cryovac facilities – procured one additional chamber for schedule risk mitigation

FGSES


Project Risks

5 P1 M17

4 M15, M34 P33

3 P2 P32

2 M20, P30 M10

1

1 2 3 4 5

LIKELIHOOD

CONSEQUENCE

Consequence

Rank Trend Risk ID Approach Risk Title1 M17 W Flight ASIC performance vs interim ASICs

2 P1 M Overall project schedule contingency3 P33 M Integration & testing of detector subassembly (characterization)

4 M15 R Detectors fail to meet specifications5 M34 M Flight Detectors delivery to FGS

6 P32 M Dual Wheel assembly

7 M10 R Mechanisms fail life requirements (LTU)

8P2 M

Delays in NASA provide material

9 M 20 M Etalon Design Failure 10 P30 M cryo alignment activities - more complexed than anticipated.


Project Risks - Top 5 - Mitigation

•Flight ASIC performance vs interim ASICs

•Risk description

•Potential differences between flight and interim ASICs

•Knowledge of integration techniques

•Lack of documentation / ITAR issues / IRCD definition

•Looking at building more robustness into FGS electronics design

•Getting quantitative agreement on the key ASIC interfaces.

•Monitor closely evolution of flight ASIC versus F2 ASIC / Direct support from ISIM

•Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Mar 2010

•Overall project schedule contingency

•Risk Description:

•ASIC & Detector deliveries late

•Early into the ETU I&T phase – technical risks

•Aggressive stands on critical path activities

•Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Nov 2010



•Integration & Testing of Detector subassembly (characterization)

•Risk description:

•Directly linked to flight ASIC risk above

•Detector potential difference between ETU and Flight unit

•use F2 ASICs to test ASIC/Detector combination to characterize system sensitivity to ASIC dependence.

•Risk timeframe: Sep 2009 to Jan 2010

•Detector fail to meet specifications

•Risk description – as per title

•Implemented more QA oversight

•Considering additional lot

•Support from ISIM in reviewing test data from Teledyne

•Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Jan 2010



•Flight Detector Delivery to FGS

•Risk description

•Deliver from Teledyne – continuous delays from Teledyne on delivery dates

•Monitor Teledyne closely

•Evaluating the procurement of additional lot (to mitigate low yield)

•Risk timeframe: May 2009 to Jan 2010


Project Issues under investigation

•SIDECAR Control Electronics

•Problem of noise in the Detector/ASIC & SCE sub-system

•Difficulties with ASIC integration

•Recent breakthroughs in noise reduction:

•noise significantly reduced in data analysis by including the reference pixels;

• stiffening up SCE Vref and VDDA supplies; and

•ASIC Bias tuning by Teledyne

•Dual Wheel – bearing

•Torque levels at cryo are not consistent

•Analysis and test results indicate a retainer needs to be redesign

Dual Wheel


Project Issues under investigation

•PFM Guider TMA has been through two unsuccessful cryo WFE test cycles:

•1) Unacceptable change in WFE in first cryo run due to settling.

•2)Full test as per procedure was not completed due to GSE issue•Translation stage motor (bearing) failure•However, preliminary WFE data indicated that the change was much less than test 1

•Plan is to fix the translation stage and retest.


Project Schedule


Project Schedule – Critical Path & Contingency

For ETU: (January 12, 2010)

•Detector Assembly •FFM – 1 week from critical path •EU and repeat of the Cryo Pupil Alignment – 2 weeks from critical path

For PFM (September 29, 2010)

•No overlap of ETU & PFM activities at test facilities•DW – 5 weeks from critical path •Flat Field and Wave Cal Optics – 6 week from critical path


Project Schedule – Critical Path & Contingency

•Schedule Contingency

•ETU•ETU PSR date: 12 Jan 2010

•5 week (PSR + Shipment* – 26 Feb 2010 NASA Need date)

•PFM•PFM PSR date: 29 Sep 2010

•6 weeks (PSR + Shipment* – 30 Nov 2010 NASA Need date)

•(assuming 7 days delivery delay)


Science Portion

Science

Guider & TFI

By Rene Doyon


FPA selection status

• One device (F16) was chosen as flight spare.

• Three remaining detector candidates: F21, F22 & F27

• F22 has a lot of hot pixels (high dark current) but may be suitable for the guider. Evaluation is underway.

• F27 is our best detector (good QE, low read noise & dark current). Would be the natural choice for TFI but its very good blue response makes it very attractive for the guider too.


Predicted Flight coating performance

Res

olu

tio

n (

-)

Wavelength (nm)

TFI Etalon Performance

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 500040

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 50002500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Gap

(n

m)


Predicted Transmittance

•25

Tra

nsm

issi

on

(%

)

Wavelength (nm)

TFI Etalon Performance

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 500030

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 50002500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Gap

(n

m)


Maximum Wavelength Shift vs Phase

Requirement


Performance at 1.50 µm


BARR Filter prototypes

• 4 prototype filters have been successfully manufactured: F157, F226, F245, F481)

• The roll-off (slope) within spec: <0.025 for F481,

< 0.02 for others

• Peak transmission within spec: Absolute T≥85% within 80% of the bandwidth at the 90% relative to peak points.

• Out-of-band blocking: : well below 10-4

• Ready to proceed to the flight production


BARR Filter prototype – short λ


Barr filter – long λ


Out-of-band Blocking < 0.01%


PSF movie (1.55-1.75m) obtained with a short wavelength etalon prototype

ghostFT

GIF Image


Contrast curve before and after speckle suppression

Speckle noise is reduced by more than a factor 10. Still preliminary but very encouraging results.


Laboratory PSF subtraction performance

fake Companion 10000 fainter

added

Subtraction from two adjacent wavelengths

Raw PSF After subtraction


rsrv5+rsrv3, MO+FO, w5, A (zern1+2,def,etc) 1944 cases

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150

wfe (nm)

NE

A (

mas

) rsrv5 MO

rsrv5 FO

rsrv3 MO

rsrv3 FO

Slope is: 0.012 mas / nm

NEA = 3.02 + (WFE-105)*0.012

For WFE = 225 nm, NEA = 4.5 mas

MO w5 1100 e-

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2.6

2.8 3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

NEA (mas)

Fre

qu

ency

rsrv5 140-169 nm

rsv3 106-136 nm

Guider: NEA changes with OTE WFE

Nominal (5x5 px) centroiding precision and read noise.

By John Hutchings


Guider: NEA vs signal from lab data

Heavy line is model for similar centroid window and noise, flight centroid algorithm

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Equivalent flux (e-)

NE

A (

mill

iarc

sec) X NEA (mom)

Y NEA (mom)

X NEA (FFT)

Y NEA (FFT)

Requirement

Model

By John Hutchings


Guider: CNL measured from lab dataSystematic centroid offsets from pixel-sampled data

2 mas

X-direction cuts through different places within detector pixel

This will be corrected for in reporting guider centroids

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Signal 900e, 1.5 microns Signal 5000e, 3.2 microns

Verification of modelled performance, plus pixel-to-pixel non-uniformities, ongoing By John Hutchings


Guider signal depends on the detector selected

Estimates for the presently-considered PFM and flight detectors

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Wavelength (microns)

Thr

ough

put

Guider Throughput F016 F022

EOL est F016

EOL pre F016EOL est F022

EOL pre F022

Guide star signal mostly at short wavelengths

By John Hutchings


Guiding on primary segment images during primary mirror alignment

These are results for PSFs from individual primary mirror segments in the early stages of focus and alignment.Little difference between G0 and M5 guide star types.NEA 8-20 mas required for this stage of the process.Will require an isolated guide star of 15 mag or brighter. Some images will be very non-circular.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Flux (photons)

NE

A (

mas

)

2a-G0-8x8

2a-G0-16x16

2a-G0-32x32

2a-M5-8x8

2a-M5-16x16

2a-M5-32x32

Requirement

detector pixels (X)

dete

ctor

pix

els

(Y)

Root of detector image (spot number 1)

10 20 30 40

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

detector pixels (X)

dete

ctor

pix

els

(Y)

Pixel QE map, Min= 1, Mean= 1, Max= 1

10 20 30 40

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

detector pixels (X)

dete

ctor

pix

els

(Y)

Root of detector image (spot number 1)

10 20 30 40

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

detector pixels (X)

dete

ctor

pix

els

(Y)

Pixel QE map, Min= 1, Mean= 1, Max= 1

10 20 30 40

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Image with 8x8 and 16x16centroid boxes superposed

~15 mag

By John Hutchings


Conclusion

Main challenges • ASIC-Detector integration• Detector Delivery to FGS• ASIC delivery to FGS• Teledyne cost overruns• Mechanism – Dual Wheel bearing issues• Overall schedule contingency

• The project is in ETU phase, having started subassembly testing• This is the phase under which we will encounter most of our

technical risks• Aggressive risk and scope management will be key for project

success.

• The way forward will necessitate mutual support between FGS and NASA on the ASIC and detector front – which is occurring already

01-1 Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009 FGS Status Report Partners workshop May 2009 Presentation...

Documents

Transcript of 01-1 Partners workshop Ottawa 19 May 2009 FGS Status Report Partners workshop May 2009 Presentation...