Solar Probe Plus A NASA Mission to Touch the Sun Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Instrument Suite Date...

Solar Probe PlusA NASA Mission to Touch the Sun

Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Instrument Suite Date

Like

lihoo

d of

Occ

urre

nce

(pro

babi

lity)

Consequence of Occurrence (Impact)

5

4

3

2

1

1 2 3 4 5

High Medium Low (Criticality)P = PerformanceC = CostS = ScheduleM = Mass

PF1

Evaluation Date: 06/25/12

PF2

CSF3

PF5PF6

PF7PSF9

FIELDS Instrument Risks Status

ID TITLE P I Crit Retire At

F3 Foreign Funding Issues 4 4H CNES Phase C Commit.

(~12/13)F9 Magnetic Sensor Qualification 3 4 M MAG Thm Test by I-CDR (~1/15)

F12 Magnetic Cleanliness 4 3M

Mission I&T (~8/16)

F13 Third axis electric field measurement 4 3M

Study Completion (~8/12)

F7 ElectroStatic Contamination 3 3M

Mission I&T (~8/16)

F5 Survival Thermal Environment 2 4M

SCM & MAG Env. Qual (~11/14)

F10 Antenna Qualification 2 3L

Ant. Qual (~3/13)

F6 Magnetic Sensor Interference 2 3L

ETU I&T (~8/14)

F11 SCM dependence on Solar Orbiter 2 2L

SO FLT SCM Complete

F1S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise

Contamination 1 3L

Mission I&T (~8/16)

F2 Plasma Wake Effects 1 3L

Mission CDR (~3/15)

CSF10CSF11

PF12

Mitigation Plans in Place for All FIELDS Risks

PF13SF14



Risk Notes: June 2012

1) F13 - Phase B Schedule Risk (chart 17): - impact & status need to be reassessed; pending ongoing review/discussions re. the recently received Phase B contract

2) F3 - Foreign Funding (commitment) (chart 7): - On 5/8 the FIELDS team learned that due to the heavy workload on the RPW/TNR-HFR team and the currently tight schedule fr the RPW/Solar Orbiter, LESIA cannot commit as initially planned for a full development and building of the FIELDS TNR/HFR. - At that time, the likelihood for risk F3 was increased from a 1 to a 4- Alternative to TNR/HFR presented on 6/12 and further information received on 7/2.

Evaluation of options for how to proceed is ongoing.- UCB will implement budget/schedule for replacement option by 9/12, bringing risk F3 back to green- Will then open a new technical risk to track the development of the new TNR/HFR option

3) F8 – Magnetic Sensor/SCM Dynamic Range (chart 11): - Risk Retired. Decision made to sample the MAG faster to cover the gap in frequency



Backup



FIELDS Phase B Risks Mitigation

FIELDS Risk Mitigation activities for Phase B include:

Antenna Qualification:• Nb materials testing, optical props aging (~Feb to Apr ‘12 TBR (was 3/12), MSFC

or EMTL (was Odeillo, France))• Antenna model thermal testing (~Oct ‘12 to Jan ‘13 (was 3/13), Odeillo, France)• Additional contingency test, if needed (~Oct ‘13, Odeillo, France)

SCM / MAG / FGM Trade:• Determine the optimal technical (dynamic range) & resource (mass and thermal)

solution (close by 4/12)• See Trades Slide for additional information.

MAG Performance Over Temperature:• MAG Cold Operations Test (~1/13)• MAG Thermal Cycling Test (end of Phase B)

MAG/SCM Interference:• MAG/SCM Interference test (similar to the MAG/FGM test performed in 7/11)

(~5/12 TBR (was 4/13), Chambon, France)Blue = change since MDR



P = PerformanceC = CostS = ScheduleM = Mass

ID Risk Mitigation PlanF1-P: S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination

Event Date

Assessment**Likeli-hood

Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A EMI/EMC Plan Draft prior to I-PDR 06/13 1 3 3B EMI/EMC Plan Final prior to I-CDR 01/15 1 3 3C EMC verification at Mission I&T 08/16 Retire Risk

* Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion

Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F1-P: S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise ContaminationCurrent

Assessment LOW

Likelihood Consequence Risk Grade

Risk Statement

If S/C design does not include EMI shielding and EMC mitigations 1 3 3

Then FIELDS will not be able to measure small signals as required Last Updated 08/10/11

PlanActual

Level Risk Grade*High 15-25Medium 6-12

Low 1-6

F1-P: Risk Burn Down

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q42011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B CA



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF2-P: Plasma Wake Effects

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Accept risk at Mission CDR when design freezes with adequate boom length. 03/15 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F2-P: Plasma Wake EffectsCurrent

Assessment LOW


Risk Statement

If S/C plasma wake effects are as large as predicted, 1 3 3

Then near-S/C electric field sensors will be compromised. Last Updated 08/10/11



A


PlanActual


Low 1-6



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF3-CS: Foreign Funding Issues

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Fund backup options for TNR and SCM 09/11 4 4 16

B Decision to proceed with foreign sources for SCMRemove TNR/HFR from CNES and select alternate option for TNR/HFR 06/12 3 4 12

CCNES proposal for next phase (SCM)Implement replacement plan for TNR/HFR include budget/schedule & open new technical risk capturing the technical development of the new option

09/12 1 4 4

D KDP-C 11/13 1 4 4E CNES Phase C Commitment 12/13 (TBR) Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

20

15

10

5

Risk F3-CS: Foreign Funding IssuesCurrent

Assessment HIGH


Risk Statement

If foreign funding sources fail 4 4 16

Then we may lose the search coil sensors or electronics Last Updated 05/21/12

F3-CS: Risk Burn Down


A


PlanActual


Low 1-6

BC

D E



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF5-P: Survival Thermal Environment

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Preliminary thermal analysis/test to confirm if the thermal design is adequate 06/12 2 4 8B GSFC MAG Ops & Survival Thermal Test 06/12 1 4 4C APL test high-efficiency blankets on MAG Boom mock-up (prior to ETU Env. Test). 08/14 (TBR) 1 4 4D SCM & MAG Environmental Qualification 11/14 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F5-P: Survival Thermal EnvironmentCurrent

Assessment Medium


Risk Statement

If the survival thermal environment for the SCM and MAG does not meet the sensors’ minimum temperature requirements, 2 4 16

Then additional heater power will be required to avoid instrument failure. Last Updated 09/13/11

D



CAB


PlanActual


Low 1-6



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A MAG Boom design accommodates >1m separation by I-PDR 06/13 1 3 3B ETU I&T complete 08/14 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F6-P: Magnetic Sensor InterferenceCurrent

Assessment LOW


Risk Statement

If the MAG and SCM sensors are too close, 2 3 6

Then their interference will compromise the magnetic measurements. Last Updated 08/10/11

AB




PlanActual


Low 1-6



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF7-P: Electro Static Contamination

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A ESC plan draft complete, prior to I-PDR 06/13 2 3 6B ESC plan final, prior to I-CDR 01/15 1 3 3C ESC verified at Mission I&T 8/16 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F7-P: Electro Static ContaminationCurrent

Assessment MEDIUM


Risk Statement

If the S/C has areas that charge up, 3 3 9

Then their potential will compromise the electric field measurements. Last Updated 08/10/11



AB

C


PlanActual


Low 1-6



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF8-PSM: Magnetic Sensor / SCM Dynamic Range

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

AMAG/FGM Trade Closure SCM Dynamic range portion is retired, the SCM/MAG compatibility is still an issue 6/25/12: decision made to cover gap in dynamic range by sampling the MAG faster

6/12 Retired Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F8-PSM: Magnetic Sensor / SCM Dynamic RangeCurrent

Assessment Retired


Risk Statement

If the combined MAG & SCM concept does not cover the required dynamic range and bandwidth, 3 3 9

Then there may be a loss of data in certain frequency bands. Last Updated 06/25/2012

A

F8-PSM: Risk Burn Down



PlanActual


Low 1-6

Risk Retired



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF9-PS: Magnetic Sensor Qualification

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Plan thermal testing of a representative MAG sensor (by I-PDR) 11/13 2 4 8B MAG Thermal Test by FIELDS Instrument CDR 12/14 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F9-PS: Magnetic Sensor QualificationCurrent

Assessment MEDIUM


Risk Statement

If the MAG sensor is not qualified for the number of operational thermal cycles, 3 4 12

Then the sensor may fail in orbit. Last Updated 08/10/11

AB

F9-FS: Risk Burn Down



PlanActual


Low 1-6



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF10-PS: Antenna Qualification

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Obtain Nb materials for testing - complete 01/12 2 3 6

B Nb material testing, Glenn Research Ctr, Southern Research, MSFC, APL, Surface Optics

2/12 – 8/12 1 3 3

C Antenna ETU thermal testing; Antenna Qualification Complete 03/13 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F10-PS: Antenna QualificationCurrent

Assessment Low


Risk Statement

If the antenna cannot be qualified to meet thermal requirements, 3 3 6

Then the antenna will need to be re-designed. Last Updated 04/19/2012

A

C

F10-PS: Risk Burn Down



PlanActual


Low 1-6

B



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Solar Orbiter ETU complete TBD 1 2 2B Re-plan SCM ETU testing as needed TBD 1 2 2C Re-plan SCM FLT integration as needed TBD 1 2 2D SO Flight SCM Complete TBD Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar OrbiterCurrent

Assessment LOW


Risk Statement

If Solar Orbiter is delayed, 2 2 4

Then the SCM for FIELDS delivery will be delayed. Last Updated 08/10/11

AB C D

F11-S: Risk Burn Down



PlanActual


Low 1-6



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Magnetics plan draft (prior to I-PDR) 06/13 3 3 9B Magnetics plan final (prior to I-CDR) 01/15 2 3 6C Design freeze at M-CDR confirms long-enough MAG Boom 03/15 1 3 3D Magnetics verified at Mission I&T 08/16 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F12-P: Magnetic CleanlinessCurrent

Assessment MEDIUM


Risk Statement

If the S/C exhibits high residual magnetic fields (AC or DC), 4 3 12

Then the magnetic measurements will be contaminated. Last Updated 08/10/11

AB

CD




PlanActual


Low 1-6



ID Risk Mitigation PlanF12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness

Event Date


Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Study the possibility of making a simple surface voltage measurement on the MAG boom as a baseline for the sunward electric field 08/2012 Retire Risk


Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F13-P: Third Axis Electric Field MeasurementCurrent

Assessment MEDIUM


Risk Statement

If S/C electrostatic center is near the TPS and highly variable, 4 3 12

Then FIELDS will fail to measure the sunward electric fields. Last Updated 01/04/2012

A




PlanActual


Low 1-6


Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Instrument Suite Date* Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion

Ris

k G

rade

25

20

15

10

5

Risk F14-S: Phase B ContractCurrent

Assessment MEDIUM


Risk Statement

If the UCB Phase B contract or UCB Phase B subcontracts lapse (due to insufficient lead time to get subcontracts to teammates), 4 2 8

Then then the early Phase B deliverables and testing schedule will be delayed. Last Updated 04/19/2012

A

F14-S: Phase B Contract

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q42011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 P = Performance

C = CostS = ScheduleM = Mass

PlanActual


Low 1-6

ID Risk Mitigation PlanF11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter

Event Date

Assessment**

Likeli-hood

Conse-quence

Risk Grade

A Phase B contracts (to UCB and teammates) in place TBD 4 1 4

B Replan of early Phase B deliverables & testing complete TBD Retire Risk

B

Solar Probe Plus A NASA Mission to Touch the Sun Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Instrument Suite Date...

Documents

Transcript of Solar Probe Plus A NASA Mission to Touch the Sun Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Instrument Suite Date...