1. Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Instrument PDR Management Peter Harvey, PM Lindsey Hayes, DPM University of California prh@ssl.berkeley.edu hayes@ssl.berkeley.edu Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 1

2. AGENDA  Development status (EM and FM)  Schedule w/ critical path, reserves and margin  Staffing, Critical Facilities  Risk Matrix & Mitigation Plans  Documentation Status (CDRLs and RFAs)  Spares Plan  Concerns  Summary Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Schedule 2

3. FIELDS Status EM Board Level Status Engineering Model Overall Status Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 3 “Y” = Complete, “IP” =In Progress

4. FIELDS Status pre-CDR Peer Reviews All Peer Reviews Complete High quality meetings No “Show Stoppers” SOC CDR ~ May 2015 Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 4 Source: SPF_MGMT_011N_ReviewMatrix

5. FIELDS Status EMECP Board Reviews EMECP Board Review Status  Board requires review if it has any circuit with more than 100 milliamps change during science operations or any circuit with greater than 1 amp DC.  Only the two LNPS have currents high enough to meet the above requirement  LNPS design will be submitted to APL in 1Q15  AEB and DFB were submitted prior to the requirement defined above. Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 5 Source: SPF_EMECP board review status.xlsx

6. Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 6 FIELDS Schedule Engineering Model iCDR

7. Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 7 FIELDS Schedule Milestones Engineering Model Has Slipped ~3 months.vs. Baseline (Apr2014) Concern Developed about Overlap Between EM and Flight Build Flight Model Schedule Re-Examined in Dec 2014 Flight Model Board Fab Moved ~2 months to Apr 2015 Flight Model Delivery Moved ~1 month to Dec 2016 Remaining Slack > 80 workdays (65 required)

8. FIELDS Schedule Flight Model w/Critical Path Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 8

9. FIELDS Staffing/Facilities Avoiding Overlap with ICON Project Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 9 ICON Moved to SDL Fab/Assy overlap w/ SPP Cal are separate I&T are separate Environments at SDL

10. FIELDS Instrument Risks Status Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 10

11. FIELDS Instrument Risks Status Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 11 HIGH Risks: F1-P: S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination (03/15) LOW Risk at M-CDR when it is verified that TWTA is not used during encounter. Retire Risk via EMC verification at Mission I&T. F12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness (01/15) LOW Risk when Magnetics plan finalized (prior to I-CDR); including a characterization of the final S/C DC fields via a S/C swing test. Retire Risk via EMC verification at Mission I&T. MEDIUM Risks: F20-P: Preamp Coax Cables (~05/15) Three potential cable vendors identified; APL will proceed with vendors once a temperature determination is made, making this a LOW Risk. F7-P: Electrostatic Contamination (03/15) LOW Risk when the ESC plan is finalized at Mission CDR. F18-P: Antenna Thermal Environment (03/15) Retire Risk when deployment case is resolved; by Mission CDR. F11-CS: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter (01/15) LOW Risk with the delivery of the SCM ETU. Will retire risk with SCM FLT delivery.

12. Document Status Deliverable documents –Documents Developed / Reviewed by FIELDS Since iPDR : 43 ! –The following is a shorter list of required deliveries for iCDR –All Delivered Documents are Provided at the following URL: ftp://apollo.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/FIELDS/1_Management/1.7_Meetings/PhaseC_20150114_iCDR/Documents/ –

13. FIELDS Spares Plan Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 13 Spares Plan Status  Baselined 11/19/14  All FIELDS Orgs.  EEE Parts Min qty 3  At Least 1 Full Parts Kit Source: SPF_MGMT_017C_SparesPlan

14. Technical  Possible Contact Between Whip and Spacecraft  High Temperatures on Harnessing Between MEP and Antennas  Need Detailed Spacecraft Magnetic Measurements to Clean Data Schedule  Difficulty in Bringing EM Integration Efforts to Closure  Team is Optimizing Antenna Design with New Vibration Levels  Team is Optimizing MEP Measurement Performance  UCB Fabrication Overlap with ICON  UMN group moving in May 2015 FIELDS Concerns Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 14

15. Summary FIELDS Summary Experienced Team In Place Management, Engineering, Quality Assurance FIELDS Organizations Have Worked Together in Past Projects Cost is a Challenge Repeated High-Cost Facilities and Materials for Antennas EVM is Forecasting 4% Overrun Due to EM Schedule Delays Schedule Has Been Difficult A Very Difficult Environment Changing Environmental Requirements Threw Us a Curve We are Committed to Making an Outstanding Instrument We Feel Our Troubles are Behind Us  FIELDS is Confident Going Forward Peter HarveyFIELDS ICDR - Management 15

16. Backup

17. 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 BVerify that TWTA is not used during encounter03/1513 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

18. 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

19. 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 C1: MAG Group Peer Review displayed no interference with current planned placement. Lower Likelihood from 3 to 2. Determined also likely consequence is 2 instead of 3. C2: Investigate noise reduction techniques and analysis (by I-CDR) 01/1522 4 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 LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the MAG and SCM sensors are too close, 22 4 Then their interference will compromise the magnetic measurements. Last Updated12/19/14 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 C1 D C2

20. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F7-P: Electro Static Contamination Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AESC plan draft complete.06/1333 9 BESC plan final, Shield conductive inside.25 AU03/1523 6 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 C P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 B

21. 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. 02/15 Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk 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 Updated09/05/2014 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

22. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade ASolar Orbiter ETU complete9/201222 4 BLead SCM Technician retiring. Extended appointment at ½ time7/201332 6 CDelivery of SCM ETU, Appointment of SPP technician1/201522 4 DDeliver SCM FLT4/2016Retire 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 MEDIUM LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If Solar Orbiter is delayed, 339 Then the SCM for FIELDS delivery will be delayed. Last Updated12/22/15 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

23. 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

24. 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 B General case has been resolved. Still need to resolve the deployment case by mission CDR. 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 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 including deployment, 2 4 8 Then additional heater power will be required to avoid instrument failure. Last Updated 12/19/14 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

25. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F5-P: Survival Thermal Environment Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AInstrument ICD and GI ICD signed -> lower risk 12/14 23 6 BMission CDR: Determination of initial interface design03/15Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F19-S: Spacecraft Interface Uncertainty Current Assessment LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If Project continues to change interface control documents, 2312 Then it is unlikely FIELDS engineering models will be completed within the planned schedule. Last Updated 12/19/14 F19-S: Spacecraft Interface Uncertainty 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

26. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F5-P: Survival Thermal Environment Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A Locate 95 ohm and 50 ohm coax cables that meet the temperature requirements & design - APL is looking at three potential cables. Waiting on temperature determination before proceeding with vendors. 5/15 14 4 BConsider redesigning the preamp to work with available coax as needed. (I&T – 3mo)09/15Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F20-P: Preamp Coax Cables Current Assessment Medium LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If we can’t find high temperature coaxs to meet our requirements, 248 Then our level 1 science requirements may be degraded Last Updated 12/19/14 F20-P: Preamp Coax Cables 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