DCS%20Preliminary%20Design%20Review

1
DCS Preliminary Design Review

• Sean C. Casey
• USRA Senior Scientist
• Lead Scientist for Science Support

2
DCS PDR Panel
John Bieging, University of Arizona Keith
Bryant, Raytheon Bob Hovde, USRA Jim Jackson
(Chair), Boston University Deborah Levine, IPAC
David Weintraub Vanderbilt University
3
Review Policy

• SOFIA science support review policy is to
  facilitate the development of world class
  instruments. The review policy is guided by past
  experiences of other ground based and space based
  facilities.
• The review board is responsible for making
  judgments and recommendations concerning the
  review content. The board chairman is
  responsible for supervising the review, mediating
  discussions, meeting the review objectives, and
  maximizing the value-added contribution of the
  review board.
• Following the review, the board meets to discuss
  findings, review and and assign RFAs, and prepare
  a draft report. The board rejects of adopts
  either in part of in-full all submitted RFAs from
  the review. The chairman prepares a final report
  of concerns and recommendations.
• The review board chairman prepared a final report
  of the review and delivers the report to the
  observatory directory within two weeks of the
  review. The final report is distributed to all
  the meeting attendees by the observatory director
  following receipt from the board chairman.

4
Review Board PDR Charter

• Statement of requirements
• Verification plans for compliance with
  requirements
• Design based on established practice
• Components based on standards
• Use of tested designs
• COTS
• Major system design elements - modules,
  interactions, interfaces

• Design tradeoff considerations
• Justification of chosen implementation
• Relationship with established methods
• Discussion of key design details
• Outline of planned implementation process
• Major concerns and risks
• Deferred Scope
• Open items and resolution plans

5
FSI Critical Design Review Charter

• Operational requirements and verification
  compliance
• Summary of major derived design specifications
  and constraints
• Major changes since PDR
• Interface details and status of agreements
• Selected design details
• Critical component status
• Selected manufacturing details and plans
• Configuration control plan (HW/SW

• Maintenance plans (HW/SW)
• Documentation status
• Breadboard and prototype test status and results
• Test plans for the deliverable units
• Operational features and constraints
• Spare provisions
• Support equipment requirements, provisions, and
  plans
• Schedule, budget, and flow plan status
• Major concerns, open items, and plans for
  resolution

6
SOFIA FSI Review Process

• Required of all SOFIA facility instruments
• Independent review panel
• Review board submits recommendations to
  observatory director
• Director and Instrument PI derive agreement
• Science Support follows up on agreement

7
Request for Action Item Form

• Presenter Section
• Comments
• Request for Action
• Author Date

8
Technology Development aboard SOFIA

• Sean Casey
• USRA

9
NASA Programs at TRLs 1 9___
KAO Program (TRL 3.5-5)
CETDP
Missions
IUE/IRAS/HST/ISO
SOFIA
SOFIA Program (TRL 3.5-7)
2000s
Space Flight Programs (TRL-9)
PI Program
Propose, Build, and Use Science Instruments
SI Program
FSI Program
Historical FTE Involvement Principal
Investigator Program The Good Ole Boys Club
Observatory Support Science Center
Personnel (IUE/IPAC/STSCI/CFA/SSMOC) General
Investigator (GI) Program The Broader Science
Community
Technology Development
I II III
Astrophysics
1990s
KAO 72-94
PIs
1970-80s
TRL
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
Support Proposals, Observ., Pipeline, Archives
1990s
?
?
DCS
1970-80s
FTEs
KAO 72-94
GIs motion
Propose, and use science instruments and archives
Astrophysics
1990s
GIs
1970-80s
KAO 72-94

• As IUE/IPAC/ST ScI/EUV/CFA/etc. have shown
• The strength of the general investigator
  programs depend upon the strength and resources
  of the associated Observatory Science Centers
• Science Centers must necessarily invoke
  different solutions for science instrument
  programs working at differing TR levels