THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/040 Final Inputs Pre-Confirmation Review February 4, 2004 Probe & Probe Carrier Program Management Director of Civil and Commercial Space Michael Cully Manager of Finance and Planning Purshina Patel

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/041 Program Management Agenda  Probe & Probe Carrier Schedules  THEMIS Major Milestone Schedule  Mission Level Critical Path Analysis  Critical Path Analysis Drill Down  Cost Proposal Development Summary  Cost Management at Swales  Phase B Cost Performance

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/042 Probe & Probe Carrier Schedules  Probe & Probe Carrier Schedule is driven by Long Lead Procurements: 1)Structures, Thermal, Harness (Swales Manufacturing Beltsville) 2)Propellant Tanks (ARDE under contract - FFP) 3)RCS with Swales Structures (AEROJET under contract - FFP) 4)Transponder (L3-Com under contract - FFP) 5)Digital Sun Sensor (ST-5/ADCOLE under contract - FFP) 6)Bus Avionics Unit (BAU) Single Board Computer (General Dynamics under contract) 7)BAU Power Control Electronics (Swales Design/GDDS manufacture) 8)BAU SMEX/TRIANA Comp Card (Swales Design/GDDS manufacture) 9)Battery (Proposals being evaluated, FFP award mid February) 10)Solar Arrays with Swales substrates (RFPs on street award late February) 11)Probe Carrier Separation System (Swales Manufacturing Beltsville)  Probe 1 is completed first and is the trail blazer for Probes 2 – 5  Baseline is 12 weeks of schedule contingency (60 working days) between Probe 1 Delivery and the start of Probe I&T  Subsequent Probe builds have 40 Days (8 weeks) of schedule contingency for each set of builds  The “A” Team consists of the full complement of the I&T Team. The “A” team builds Probe 1 and then partitions into two Teams to build Probes 2 & 3 in parallel. A residual of the “A” team (Team 1) continues on with the environmental testing of Probes.  Following completion of Probes 2 & 3 they are handed off to A Team for environmental testing. Teams 2 & 3 are assigned to complete Probes 4 & 5.  Probe Carrier is built in parallel by a separate Mechanical Team and links up with Probes at test facility. The Probe Carrier has 40 Days of schedule contingency.  Schedule contingency at back end of program has been lumped into a full 60 days (4W +4W +4W) based on direction from GSFC

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/043 Major Milestone Schedule #1  General Assumptions –Five day work week with 8 hrs per, shift planned for nominal flow Exception - TV/TB testing and major moves –I&T Team A is composed of teams 1-3 in order to cross train for Probe 2-5 I&T –Weekends & additional shifts can be used to make up schedule due to late deliveries anomalies prior to mission I&T

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/044 Summary Schedule with Team Assignments for I&T Alternate w/o Dates

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/045 Major Milestone Schedule #2 Potential earlier delivery of Instruments allows earlier start of I&T Bus integration contingencies Currently working day to day scheduling flow with UCB Potential earlier delivery of Instruments allows earlier start of Instrument I&T Bus integration contingencies Working day to day scheduling flow with UCB

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/046 Major Milestone Schedule #3 Probe Carrier contingency is in parallel with Probe schedule contingency Probe #1 has significant slack at end of I&T Unused slack will be utilized for mission simulations (based on resource availability)

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/047 Mission Level Critical Path Probe #1 is off critical path since it is completed significantly earlier than Probes 2-5.

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/048 Critical Path Analysis Drill Down  Current critical path at Probe level –Base panel composite structure delivery to RCS vendor (P1 late January ‘05) Subsequently drives availability of base panel for BAU, Battery & Transponder integration –Overall structure deliveries are driven by thermal cycling & strength testing of each Probe prior to delivery to I&T  Probe Carrier is off the critical path –Built in parallel with Probes 1 – 5 –Separation System is part of the Probe Carrier and is decoupled from the Probes until late in the test program. –Separation System has extensive test program of prototype (2004) with early check fit with Probes –Has adequate schedule contingency  Flight software is off critical path –Using commercial processor boards at Hammers (2003) and Swales FLATSAT (2004) –Processor Board Engineering Development Unit planned for mid 2004  Mitigation Strategies –BAU EDU can be used to start Probe Bus I&T –BUS simulator supplied to UCB for IDPU interface testing –IDPU simulator is supplied to Swales for Probe I&T –Base panel simulators to be used for RCS integration start –Propellant Tanks for Probe 1 are delivered to Swales for fit check with Probe structure prior to shipment to RCS vendor –High fidelity Probe model (Phase A type) is planned for mid 2004 for I&T work flow and Harness build up

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/049 Cost Swales  General Tracking of Costs –Subsystem Leads responsible for monitoring all labor and material charges Charge numbers are opened at the fifth WBS level –PM and Subsystem Leads review weekly spending via on-line reports Incurred cost data available weekly –Major subcontracts are Firm Fixed Price with $ Milestones consistent with SOW (exception to Hammers) –Contractors working via purchase order or cost-reimbursement, invoice bi- monthly PM sign off required prior to processing  Phase B - Budgets versus actual spending worked at summary level  Phase C/D – Swales internal Performance Measurement System –Budget Cost Work Schedule (BCWS) developed in Open Plan for each major subsystem –Budget Cost Work Performed (BCWP) calculated by statusing of Open Plan –Actual Cost Worked Performed (ACWP) compared to BCWS & BCWP to assess performance –Estimates To Complete (ETC) initiated if WBS elements projected to be > 10% of Budget At Completion (ITD + ETC)

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/0410 Probe & Probe Carrier Cost Basis of Estimates * Note: Yes indicates that this WBS element has lower level WBS elements, which include NRE, hardware, and RE items. Primary = Represents primary means of pricing. Secondary = Represents secondary means of pricing. Cost Reserves held by UCB, Swales proposal excluded cost reserves Parametric Model Assessment based on Aerospace model

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/0411 Cost Reserves held by UCB, Swales proposal excluded cost reserves Probe & Probe Carrier Cost Basis of Estimates

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/0412 Phase B Burn Rate (Inception To Date 12/31/03)  Exceptional labor performance against Cost Proposal –Slower start up in staffing in some areas (Electrical Engineering) –On average we are using a more experienced staff than originally proposed resulting in design labor efficiencies –Recent labor levels (December & January) are consistent with cost proposal labor levels essentially reaching full staffing –Current labor savings will be used to buy down risk in phase C/D  Subcontract/Materials Plan –Spend rate is behind plan due to assumptions made in cost proposal on Milestone Payment plans for FFP contracts –Generally there is a lag of 30 – 45 days from assumed incurred cost (plan) versus actual billing –Awarded FFP contracts (Tanks, RCS, Transponder) are in line with Phase A estimates

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/0413 Pre-Confirmation Review February 4, 2004 Probe & Probe Carrier Program Management Backup Slides RAO Assessment

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/0414 RAO Probe Subsystem Cost Assessment  In general Non Recurring (NRE) comparison is in acceptable range (RAO 10% higher) –Percent Difference at Subsystem Level defined as: {RAO}/{Swales Grass Roots BOE})  Largest discrepancy is in Recurring (RE) element: 104% (RAO > than Swales Grass Roots) Analysis of Recurring effort indicates that RAO estimate is higher than Swales Grass Roots BOE. This represents nearly 43% (5 Probes x $730K or $3.65M) of total dollar value of difference between RAO and Swales for all cost elements. Swales believes that our Grass Roots BOE is representative of the work to be performed: –Based on Swales Commercial Space manufacturing of structures (we do this for a living every day on a volume & cost constrained basis) –All work performed in house at Swales Beltsville facility at industry competitive rates –Tolerances and materials used on structure are average for Space structures and are not “Optical Bench” class –Majority of panels are cut from larger pre formed panels therefore reducing cycle times –Tooling is less complex due to the method above and is spread over multiple builds –No Mechanisms on Probe Bus which is typically included in historical Mechanical Cost at Completion numbers (Separation System costs are captured under Probe Carrier WBS)

THEMIS Pre-Confirm 02/04/0415 RAO Probe Subsystem Cost Assessment Con’t  Largest discrepancy is in Recurring (RE) element: 73% (RAO > than Swales Grass Roots) Analysis of Recurring effort indicates that RAO estimate is higher than Swales Grass Roots BOE. This represents nearly 20% (5 Probes x $340K or $1.7M) of total dollar value of difference between RAO and Swales for all cost elements. –Majority of RE is in Battery & Solar Array costs (will be negotiated as FFP) –Lithium-Ion Battery & Solar Array costs are based on Phase A FFP quotes from industry –Typically the Lithium-Ion batteries have lower per unit costs than industry standard –Solar Array substrate costs are included in structures WBS  17% (RAO > than Swales Grass Roots) –Swales Cost Proposal assumed CFE Processor board and therefore was not priced by Swales. If this was priced and included in the cost proposal RAO and Swales grass roots estimate would have been better aligned  Probe Carrier/Separation System indicates RAO estimate (lower bound) is in line with revised Swales estimate. Increase in estimate was due to higher costs for Separation System development and materials. (This was one of the several factors which drove Swales to develop the Separation System in-house)