1. GLAST LAT ProjectManager’s Face to Face - ISOC, 17 March 2005 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope WBS 4.1.B Instrument Science Operations Center Manager’s Face to Face Meeting 17 March 2005 Rob Cameron rac@slac.stanford.edu 650-926-2989 Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope

2. GLAST LAT ProjectManager’s Face to Face - ISOC, 17 March 2005 2 ISOC Coordination Activities  LAT Project –Planning transition from LAT development and delivery phase to operations phase  Operations Planning –Definition of Operations Steering Committee –Meetings of ISOC team leads –Coordination of Calibration and Analysis Methods Science Group with ISOC tasks  LAT Configuration Tracking and Control Database –Working with Systems Engineering, sub-systems to define and implement configuration DB –Working group being established –Plan: keep existing methods in place; provide glue where necessary

3. GLAST LAT ProjectManager’s Face to Face - ISOC, 17 March 2005 3 Ops Constraints On LAT Diagnostic TLM Summary of results from meeting between ISOC, FSW, Erik Andrews on use of LAT Diagnostic TLM  TCS –Cannot keep TCS diagnostic on, as Alert-initiated TDRSS MA link would never close  EPU Boot –Continuous EPU boot diagnostic data stream @3.2 kbps is a concern –concern is overflow of S/C FIFO telemetry buffer, which is emptied at 1kbps on TDRSS MA –move EPU boot tlm to HSK APID  MEM –use only during RT comm for monitoring? –not a concern for pool space diagnostic: small dataset  LFS –File System Status: monitor at least daily, during RT contact (but only a small response) –Directory or Root Listing: used infrequently, only during RT contact? –File Dump: use only during RT contact, and/or use via science stream  MSG, LIM –TBD impact –ISOC should plan to dump and clear MSG log at least daily, during RT contact  ITC, command response –Response should be on for all ATS commands low rate, limited response – acceptable impact –Response can also be on for file uploads during RT contat  Dwell –Constraint on ISOC usage, to be assessed case by case –Duration should be limited as much as possible TBD: Commanding of diagnostic tlm in ATS, to coincide with planned RT schedule vs. RT PROC request –Potential impact on Alert capability if scheduled RT comm is missed

4. GLAST LAT ProjectManager’s Face to Face - ISOC, 17 March 2005 4 Non-ITAR ITOS?  Met with Greg Greer on possibility of non-ITAR ITOS. Two solutions proposed: 1.Create a package that would be limited to receiving and processing telemetry, creating a “monitor only” system. –Remove all commanding-related components from ITOS, and potentially modify the STOL engine to eliminate commanding-related directives. This option must be usable for operational real-time monitoring of the LAT, and hence receiving real-time telemetry (LAT + spacecraft) from the GLAST MOC. It would not be usable for command-sequence generation and PROC testing with the LAT Testbed. 2.Create a package capable of formulating and transmitting CCSDS commands, but only at the CCSDS packet level. Remove all ITOS components and functions related to transfer-frame encapsulation of command packets, as well as any other functionality associated with the CCSDS COP-1 commanding protocol. Would be suitable for command-sequence / PROC validation, provided that the command packets produced by this restricted package are identical to those generated by the complete ITOS system at the MOC. The planned VSC interface between ITOS and the LAT or LAT simulation operates with CCSDS packets, so this option must be and should be suitable for LAT command-sequence and PROC development, test and validation at SLAC.  Next step: work with GLAST Project at NASA to see if either option can be made non-ITAR restricted

5. GLAST LAT ProjectManager’s Face to Face - ISOC, 17 March 2005 5 Interface Testing with GSSC  ISOC will support first formal interface test with GSSC on 18 March. Test of data transfers of sample mission planning products between GSSC and ISOC using FastCopy. Specific steps involving ISOC are: –ISOC sends GSSC a dummy memory load packaged per the Operations Data Products ICD –ISOC sends GSSC a dummy PROC request packaged per the ICD –GSSC sends ISOC a preliminary timeline file packaged per the ICD  GSSC and ISOC will examine delivered files to confirm that they are what was expected. A conference call has been set up to allow participants to coordinate during the test.  A retest is scheduled for 5 April if any problems occur.  The full description of test is available at http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/dev/gssc_testing/plans/GST2-ST5- plan.txt. http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/dev/gssc_testing/plans/GST2-ST5- plan.txt

6. GLAST LAT ProjectManager’s Face to Face - ISOC, 17 March 2005 6 Issues and Concerns  Project milestones –MOR is now very early relative to launch, Jan 2006, and should be delayed  ISOC staffing –ISOC software development under threat because of delayed availability of developers  VSC availability for ISOC testing