1. Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Quarterly Management June 18, 2013 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management1

2. QUARTERLY MGMT AGENDA Project Overview Project Organization Spacecraft Accommodation/Instrument Suite Measurements Technical Status Special Topics: Antenna Status, RFS Status, EM.v.FM I&T Project Schedule Project Risk (Summary; Detail Description of any New, Yellow, or Red Risks; UFE threats/liens) Total Cumulative Project Cost Project Labor: Prime and Major Subs Subcontractor Summary Issues and Concerns Lunch 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management2

3. FIELDS Overview Observations Measure electric and magnetic fields and waves Measure pointing flux, absolute plasma density and electron temperature, S/C floating potential and density fluctuations, and radio emissions Measurements Magnetic field vectorsDC-64kHz Electric field vectorsDC-1MHz Plasma waves5Hz to 1MHz Quasi-thermal Noise10 kHz to 2.5MHz Radio emissions1MHz to 20 MHz 3 UCB Electric Field Antenna LPC2E Search-Coil Magnetometer (SCM) GSFC Fluxgate Magnetometer (MAG) Project Status Update PDR Complete Funding Definitized Contract Value: $37.17 M Definitized Funding Value (mod 25):$15.95 M Unallocated Future Expense :$ 0.70 M End Date:9/29/2018 Current EAC:$37.17 M Milestones (Phase C) FIELDS CPT#1Oct 2014 MEP TV CompleteDec 2014 FIELDS Boards FabricatedMay 2015 SCM&MAG FabricatedSep 2015 SCM & MAG TestedDec 2015 Antenna TestedJan 2016 FIELDS Board TestedFeb 2016 FIELDS Components at I&TFeb 2016 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management

4. FIELDS Organization 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management4

5. The FIELDS Sensors V1-V4 electric antennas MAGi, MAGo V5 electric antenna SCM V1-V4 electric antennas - Five voltage sensors - Two Fluxgate magnetometers - One search-coil magnetometer - Main Electronics Package 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management5

6. FIELDS Block Diagram Two Sides Each has Spacecraft I/F Each has Magnetometer Each has Antenna Elect. Each has Power Supply FIELDS1 also has Radio Freq Spect./DCB Digital Fields Board SCM Calib Control Absolute Time Sequencer TDS I/F FIELDS2 also has Time Domain Sampler DCB I/F SWEAP I/F 6/18/2014 FIELDS Quarterly Management 6

7. Mass 7 MASS Tracking Estimates have been stable since PDR 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management

8. Power Power Tracking Required SCM Heater Power remains higher than allocation FPGA power rises as temperature increases. MEP Thermal Vacuum will use flight-like FPGAs 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management8

9. Preamp Development Preamp – EM Preamps V1-V4 offer improved performance over breadboard design – EM Preamp V5 added to the instrument complement – Layouts complete – Ready for Review/Fab Preamp breadboard 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management9 V5 Layout V1-V4 Layout

10. AEB Development Antenna Electronics Board – AEB1 and AEB2 designs on common PWB – 1 AEB1 and 2 AEB2 boards in Assembly AEB single channel breadboard 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management AEB1 Engineering Model in Assembly 10

11. DCB Development Data Controller Board – DCB EM1 Completed and in I&T facility – DCB EM2 in Final Layout – RTAX Daughterboard Layout Complete 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management DCB EM2 Engineering Model in Layout 11 Daughterboard Engineering Model Layout Complete

12. DFB Development Status DFB work proceeding well EM1 tested and characterization in-process Xilinx FPGA Daughter Board complete and integrated with EM1 EM2 development moving into layout, schematic review held last Friday, 6/13 SIDECAR ASIC screening complete on FM parts, in-process on remaining EM part FPGA development continues on remaining modules: Triggers, Burst Memory, and Spectra/Cross- Spectra  EEE Parts approved by PCB, and procurements nearing completion – All known orders for EM2 and FM complete, with most parts are in house ASIC CGA attachment PO placed with BAE Systems – 1 st article inspection ~ 5 weeks, Eng & QA on-site inspection – Three mechanical parts for vibe and ‘practice’ for board assembly; and one part for EM2 – After EM2 board assembly and testing, will turn-on attachment of two FM parts Closed 7 of 8 Peer Review actions items, – 8 th response in review by SPF team; no I-PDR or M-PDR action items assigned to DFB Risk mitigation plans are proceeding and trending downward – ASIC screening confirms parts are viable flight candidates – Board deflection analysis indicates positive margin, vibration testing to confirm 12 6/18/2014 FIELDS Quarterly Management

13. DFB Development Road Map 13 Prototype DFB Xilinx FPGA DB SIDECAR Evaluation Board Flight DFB EMs and FM DFBs can accommodate all variations of FPGA DB: Xilinx, ProASIC, ProtoRTAX, FM RTAX FPGA DB EM1 EM2-Flatsat EM2 Schematic Review complete 6/13 Notional Layout Shown 6/18/2014 FIELDS Quarterly Management

14. DFB EM1 14 EM1 bench testing complete FPGA testing and characterization of DFB (including ASIC) starting FPGA DB ASIC FPGA DB with programmable Xilinx, upward compatible code with ProASIC/RTAX FPGAs SIDECAR ASIC in a socket with PCB structural enhancement cap 6/18/2014 FIELDS Quarterly Management

15. DFB FPGA DIAGRAM Spectra & X-Spectra DB M 6/18/2014 FIELDS Quarterly Management

16. DFB Test Lab Configurations 16 DFB bench-level testing and characterization set-up FPGA loads and science analysis continue for next couple months ASIC characterization included Thermal testing while EM2 is in layout/fab/assembly SIDECAR ASIC screening Both FM and spare selected Remaining EM part screening in- process SIDECAR ASIC Thermal ScreeningEM1 Testing Configuration 6/18/2014 FIELDS Quarterly Management

17. DFB Schedule Critical path is thru EMs Reserve held @ 1mnth/year Schedule threat is CGA attachment and EM2 assembly Work-around is use of EM1 until EM2 is ready EM1 EM2 6/18/2014 FIELDS Quarterly Management

18. SCM  Preamp ETU Completed  Thermal Modeling Completed. Converted to NASTRAN and delivered to APL.  SCM Sensor Delivery Advanced to October 2014 for EM I&T Functional Tests  SCM Thermal Verifications in France Nov 2014 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management18 SCM ETU Preamp Circuit (Pre-3DPlus) SCM ETU Structure

19. MAG The EQM Mag-netometer board (see photo) tuning is complete with excellent frequency response. Roll-off filters were adjusted to nominal values. The FPGA has been checked out and verified as correct. It is currently being soldered down (i.e., socket being removed) to the EQM board in preparation for the next level of laboratory tests. MAG 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management19

20. The thin shell calibration shows that the alignment accuracy of the new SPP MAG sensor mechanical design is very good (see 0.1% fit shown in plot). Optics Branch personnel have started the support of the upcoming thermal test for the Mag prototype sensor (see photo). MAG 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management20

21. Other: The first thermal cycling on the EQM board (-40 °C to +80 °C) at ambient pressure has been completed. The SPP Mag thermal blanket model is complete and has been sent to the GSFC blanket lab for MLI blanket design. The Mag cover shell molds are complete and have been sent to the GSFC Composites Lab to begin fab of shells. We have started assembly of the FPGA-based data simulator. This is a command and data simulator that may be used in EQM testing (vibration, TVAC, etc) for use in FIELDS tests. It provides all command functions and telemetry messages using simulated vector and analog housekeeping data. It has the same mass and power dissipation as a "real" MAG board. GSEOS development (screens and Python scripts) continues. MAG 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management21

22. EM I&T Facility is Ready 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management22 All ESD Benches Plentiful Power and Internet drops Parts/Equipment Cabinets Tool Chest In 214B Now: DCB ETU1

23. FIELDS Schedule Keys to Next 2 Quarters (to iCDR)  Verify Antenna Optical Properties (SAO, July)  Verify MEP Low Noise Operation (I&T CPT, EMC)  Verify MEP Thermal Design (I&T TV) 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management23

24. EM I&T Schedule What is wrong with our current I&T plan? [1] PROTO-RTAX is expensive ($7K/device + $3K/assembly) x 3 boards [2] Fairly Complex communications and timing between DCB, TDS and DFB [3] Strongly desire some integration before committing to PROTO RTAX [4] Sequence: Burn PROTO, Assemble at APL, Board Tests at LASP, UCB, UMN [5] Estimating the PROTO step will take 5 weeks (3 weeks assembly, 2 in test) [6] The current schedule forces peer reviews too close to iCDR. 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management24

25. EM I&T Schedule Alternate Plan #1: Overlap Peer Reviews with PROTO fab/assy Alternate Plan #2: Perform Calibration, EMC, Staking before PROTOs are available 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management25

26. FIELDS Instrument Risks Status Likelihood of Occurrence (probability) Consequence of Occurrence (Impact) 5 4 3 2 1 12345 HighMediumLow (Criticality) P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass P F1 P F2 P F6 P F7 PS F9 IDTITLEPICritRetire At F1 S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination 54H Mission I&T (~8/16) F12Magnetic Cleanliness53 H Mission I&T (~8/16) F17 Inboard/Outboard MAG Sensor Interference 33M Instrument CDR (01/15) F7Electro-Static Contamination33M Mission I&T (~8/16) F6Magnetic Sensor Interference33M Mission CDR (03/15) F18Antenna Thermal Environment24L Instrument CDR (01/15) F16MEP Thermal Environment13L Parts confirmed at MEP Thermal Vac (11/14) F9Magnetic Sensor Qualification14L MAG Thm Test by I-CDR (~1/15) F10Antenna Qualification23L Updated SC & Antenna Thermal Models (05/15) F11SCM dependence on Solar Orbiter22L SO FLT SCM Complete F2Plasma Wake Effects13L Mission CDR (~3/15) CS F10 CS F11 P F12 P F16 P F17 P F18 Evaluation Date: 06/13/14 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management26

27. F1-P: S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination Note: When the TWTA power system is changed to and EMC conforming system then this risk can lowered to a likelihood of 1. Mission CDR is the latest this could be resolved. F12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness Note: A swing test could be done to give us a good characterization of the remnant DC FIELDS. This would allow the likelihood to be decreased. F17-P: Inboard/Outboard Magnetic Sensor Interference RETIRE RISK based on final boom length determination and extensive sensor interference study. F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Decreased likelihood from ‘4’ to ‘3’ based on the final determination of magnet sensor locations on the MAG Boom. 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management27 FIELDS Instrument Risks Status

28. FIELDS EVM 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management28

29. FIELDS Funding 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management29

30. FIELDS UCB Labor Labor cumulative.v. budget is +6%. Labor Hrs is +3%. 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management30

31. FIELDS Subcontracts 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management31

32. PDR RFA’s 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management32

33. Backup 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management33

34. P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass ID Risk Mitigation Plan F1-P: S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AEMI/EMC Plan Draft prior to I-PDR06/1313 3 A2 Likelihood bumped up to 5 and consequence to 4 due to TWTA does not meet the current EMC requirements. When the TWTA power system is changed to and EMC conforming system then this risk can lowered to a likelihood of 1. Mission CDR is the latest this could be resolved. 03/145420 BEMI/EMC Plan Final prior to I-CDR01/1513 3 CEMC verification at Mission I&T08/16Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F1-P: S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination Current Assessment HIGH LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If S/C design does not include EMI shielding and EMC mitigations 5420 Then FIELDS will not be able to measure small signals as required Last Updated06/13/14 Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 F1-P: S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 B C A A2 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management34

35. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F2-P: Plasma Wake Effects Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AAccept risk at Mission CDR when design freezes with adequate boom length.03/15Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F2-P: Plasma Wake Effects Current Assessment LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If S/C plasma wake effects are as large as predicted, 13 3 Then near-S/C electric field sensors will be compromised. Last Updated08/10/11 F2-P: Plasma Wake Effects Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 A P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management35

36. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A MAG Boom design accommodates >1m separation by I-PDR Increased risk likleihood dues to APL ownership of MAG boom. Will ‘buy down’ when commitment to sufficient sensor separation is made. Sensors reorganized. 06/13 4 3 12 B APL to re-evaluate boom –to-umbra clearance issues Complete.04/1433 9 C Investigate noise reduction techniques and analysis (by I-CDR)01/1523 6 DMission CDR; finalized Boom Design 03/15 Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Current Assessment MED LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the MAG and SCM sensors are too close, 33 9 Then their interference will compromise the magnetic measurements. Last Updated06/13/14 A B F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 c D 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management36

37. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F7-P: Electro Static Contamination Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AESC plan draft complete, prior to I-PDR06/1323 6 BESC plan final, prior to I-CDR01/1513 3 CESC verified at Mission I&T8/16Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F7-P: Electro Static Contamination Current Assessment MEDIUM LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the S/C has areas that charge up, 33 9 Then their potential will compromise the electric field measurements. Last Updated08/10/11 F7-P: Electro-Static Contamination Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 A B C P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management37

38. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F9-PS: Magnetic Sensor Qualification Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A Plan thermal testing of a representative MAG sensor (by I-PDR) Drop likelihood to 1 based on recent tests 12/13 14 4 BMAG Thermal Test by FIELDS Instrument CDR 12/14 Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F9-PS: Magnetic Sensor Qualification Current Assessment LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the MAG sensor is not qualified for the number of operational thermal cycles, 1 44 Then the sensor may fail in orbit. Last Updated 12/13/13 A B F9-FS: Magnetic Sensor Qualification Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management38

39. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F10-PS: Antenna Qualification Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A Obtain Nb materials for testing - complete 01/1223 6 B Nb material testing, Glenn Research Ctr (high temp testing complete), Southern Research, MSFC, APL, Surface Optics 2/12 – 8/12 13 3 C APL measuring material properties of the coupons that underwent high-temp testing at Glenn Research and tube straightness being evaluated. 04/13133 D Antenna ETU thermal testing; Antenna Qualification (I-PDR) - TRL6 hurdle passed. Some concern lingers regarding the antenna/spacecraft thermal models. Will re-evaluate based on updated SC/antenna thermal models. 5/14 Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F10-PS: Antenna Qualification Current Assessment Low LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the antenna cannot be qualified to meet thermal requirements, 13 3 Then the antenna will need to be re-designed. Last Updated03/07/2014 A C F10-PS: Antenna Qualification Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 B D 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management39

40. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade ASolar Orbiter ETU completeTBD12 2 BRe-plan SCM ETU testing as neededTBD12 2 CRe-plan SCM FLT integration as neededTBD12 2 DSO Flight SCM CompleteTBDRetire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter Current Assessment LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If Solar Orbiter is delayed, 1 2 2 Then the SCM for FIELDS delivery will be delayed. Last Updated12/12/12 A B C D F11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management40

41. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AMagnetics plan draft (prior to I-PDR) - complete06/1333 9 A2 Likelihood bumped up to 5 due to TWTA does not meet the current EMC requirements. 03/14 5315 B Magnetics plan final (prior to I-CDR) This should include a characterization the final DC fields of the spacecraft via a spacecraft swing test. 01/1523 6 CDesign freeze at M-CDR confirms long-enough MAG Boom03/1513 3 DMagnetics verified at Mission I&T08/16Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness Current Assessment HIGH LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the S/C exhibits high residual magnetic fields (AC or DC), 5 3 15 Then the magnetic measurements will be contaminated. Last Updated 06/13/14 A B C D F12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 A2 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management41

42. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AFinalize expected thermal design at IPDR11/1313 3 BConfirm all parts meet the MEP high temp AFT at MEP Thermal Vacuum Test.12/14Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F16-P: MEP Thermal Environment Current Assessment LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the MEP high temperature AFT remains over 55 deg C 13 3 Then FIELDS heritage electronics may need to be re-designed to accommodate the higher flight temperature. Last Updated06/13/13 A B F16-P: MEP Thermal Environment Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management42

43. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AMeasure/analyze interference per separation distance Complete 02/14 34 12 B FIELDS to investigate sensor placement on the MAG Boom: MAG-SCM-MAG configuration? inboard MAG closer to spacecraft? Complete: settled on the SCM- MAG-MAG configuration. Consequences determined to not be as severe as anticipated 02/14339 C Longer MAG Boom determination (iCDR) vs. acceptance of science loss trade-off01/15Retire/Accept Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F17-P: Inboard/Outboard Magnetic Sensor Interference Current Assessment Medium LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the inboard and outboard MAG Sensors are too close 339 Then interference between the MAG Sensors will compromise the DC Magnetic FIELD Measurements. their interference will compromise the magnetic measurements. Last Updated03/07/14 A B F17-P: Inboard/Outboard Magnetic Sensor Interference Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 C 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management43

44. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F5-P: Survival Thermal Environment Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A Preliminary thermal analysis to confirm if the thermal design is adequate Preamp heater power allocated to help avoid instrument failure 09/13 24 8 BHeater power re-allocation as needed (iCDR)01/15Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F18-P: Antenna Thermal Environment Current Assessment Medium LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the thermal environment for the four electric field antennas does not meet the sensors’ minimum temperature requirements, 2 4 8 Then additional heater power will be required to avoid instrument failure. Last Updated 01/24/14 F18-P: Antenna Thermal Environment Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 B A P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 6/18/2014FIELDS Quarterly Management44

45. Digital Fields Board Block Diagram Generates time domain and spectral domain data products (DC – 75kHz) Implementation includes: - Programmable gain states - Burst memory - Flexible configurations - Search coil cal. signal - Low mass, low power ADC 9 inputs: 5 E-field antennas 4 search coil channels 26 signals digitized @ 150 kS/s Analog Filters / Gain stages FPGA processing

46. IDTITLEPICrit ImpactTrend Retire At SPF- DFB01SIDECAR workmanship23 L PMPost PDR characterization testing - Screening complete SPF- DFB02PWB Structural Deflection23 L PMSCPost PDR vibration testing, Q3-2014 If the SIDECAR experiences latent failure and/or has reliability issues, then the lack of a complete EIDP and respective workmanship could hinder the debug/troubleshooting, and have the potential to degrade performance and warrant possible redesign which could increase needed mass and power. Risk mitigation plan is to perform characterization and environmental testing on the SIDECARs. These parts have prior electrical burn-in testing hence characterization and environmental tests will demonstrate good rigor to retire the risk. Risk rating: Probability 2, Impact 3; not likely to occur based on successful burn-in testing completed by GSFC/Teledyne; consequences slightly higher based on possibility of reverting to backup plan of discrete ADCs. Proposed/heritage ADCs are not as rad-tolerant, require more board space (mass increases), more power, and/or could drive science return. Newer, more viable, ADCs identified but require radiation testing. DFB Risk Mitigation Proceeding If the DFB PWBA experiences too high of structural deflection, then the assembled components may experience package stresses, with respective workmanship and/or reliability issues. The primary concern is the SIDECAR CGAs. This potential could warrant possible redesign of the PWB layout, structural stiffness design, or reduction in DFB capability due to replacing the SIDECAR/other components to stay within mass and power constraints. Analysis and part modeling in process now. Risk mitigation plan is to perform vibration testing to SPF-MEP vibration levels on an EM PWB with representative components and mass models. Analysis and modeling, along with vibration testing, must prove the PWBA design and demonstrate good rigor to retire the risk Risk rating: Probability 2, Impact 3; not likely to occur based on analysis and modeling and good design practices of the PWBA. Consequences now lowered with addition of ASIC Al cap which lowers structural deflection in areas of concern. Analysis complete, vibe test pre-CDR, cap in place on EM1.

47. DFB Related Action Items 47 DFB Peer Review held Nov 4-5 th, materials available on SPF site Action Items from this and other Peer reviews included here (SCM Peer Review Sept 4-5, 2013) No DFB actions assigned at I-PDR or M-PDR