1. Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Quarterly Management July 18, 2013

2. Project Overview Project Organization Spacecraft Accommodation/Instrument Suite Measurements Technical Status Special Topics: Antenna TRL 6 Status, Frequency Plan 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 QUARTERLY MGMT AGENDA

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 System Reliability Redesign Complete Internal ICD Drafts Complete Funding Definitized Contract Value: $13.65 M Definitized Funding Value (mod 17):$ 7.56 M Unallocated Future Expense :$ 0.61 M End Date:3/14/2014 Current EAC:$13.65 M Milestones (Phase B) FIELDS Specification Dev (L2)Oct, 2012 MEP Specification Dev (L3)Jan, 2013 DCB & AEB Detailed DsnSep 2013 RFS Detailed DsnOct 2013 FPGA ReviewsOct 2013 IPDRNov 19, 2013

4. FIELDS Organization FIELDS PI Stuart Bale FIELDS PI Stuart Bale Advisors SAG: A. Balogh, J.-L.Bougeret, P.J. Kellogg, F.S. Mozer FIELDS Science Team FIELDS Science Team FIELDS PM P. Harvey FIELDS PM P. Harvey Finances M. Willer Finances M. Willer Electrical K. Goetz Electrical K. Goetz SMA J. Fischer SMA J. Fischer Scheduling D. Meilhan Scheduling D. Meilhan Antennas D. Glaser Antennas D. Glaser AEB J. Bonnell S. Heavner AEB J. Bonnell S. Heavner DCB/RFS M. Pulupa D. Gordon D. Seitz DCB/RFS M. Pulupa D. Gordon D. Seitz TDS/LNPS K. Goetz TDS/LNPS K. Goetz DFB R. Ergun DFB R. Ergun MAG R. MacDowall MAG R. MacDowall SCM V. Krasnosselskikh SCM V. Krasnosselskikh UCB LASP UMN GSFC LPC2E Various FIELDS DPM L. Hayes FIELDS DPM L. Hayes Preamps D. Seitz Preamps D. Seitz Mechanical P. Turin Mechanical P. Turin MEP W. Donakowski MEP W. Donakowski Thermal M. D. Aguado Thermal M. D. Aguado Parts A. Le Parts A. Le

5. FIELDS Overview 5 Electric Field Antennas 2.3 m Tip-to-Hinge Preamps located at Hinge Mag Boom MAG (Inboard)MAG (Outboard) SCM Main Electronics Package (MEP) Main Electronics Package (2 parts): Data Controller Board (DCB) – UCB Radio Frequency Spectrometer (RFS) - UCB Time Domain Sampler (TDS) - UMinn Digital Fields Board (DFB) - LASP 2 Antenna Electronics Boards (AEB) – UCB 2 MAG Electronics Boards (MAG) – GSFC 2 Low Noise Power Supplies (LNPS) - UMinn *: SCM at end of boom * V5

6. System Redesign 6

7. MEP Stack Up Side 1 – LNPS1 – MAGo (Outboard) – DCB/RFS – AEB1 – DFB Side 2 – AEB2 – TDS – MAGi (Inboard) – LNPS2 Every other slice is bolted to S/C Panel (June meeting AI) 7

8. Mass 8 MASS Tracking System Redesign – Two AEB’s – Two LNPS’s – TDS w/ SC I/F

9. Power 9 Power Tracking

10. TRL6 Status 10 See : 130718 SPP Fields ANT TRL6 Review_w_Backup_Slides

11. Preamp / RFS Development Preamp – Parts selection completed – Dual input JFET will require qual and screening – SQPL JFETs are available in same package, as backup plan (4x poorer noise performance – All other components are SQPL – Breadboard complete – Testing is under way RFS Analog Breadboard – Reconfigured analog chain – Breadboard design and layout completed – All components are SQPL 11 Preamp breadboard RFS Analog breadboard

12. FPGA Daughter Board Development FPGA ETU Daughter board schematics and layout completed – This board houses the Actel/Microsemi reprogrammable FPGA (ProASIC3000) – Fabrication and population scheduled to accommodate integration with DCB-RFS_ADC ETU1 – HDLP Connectors delivery expected in September, 2013 – Used by DCB, TDS, and DFB Daughter board de-insertion hardware ETU FPGA Daughter board layout

13. DCB/RFS_ADC ETU1 Development DCB_RFS-ADC Schematics Completed – Schematic Review held in June, 2013 – BOM released and parts have been ordered DCB_RFS-ADC PCB Layout Completed 13 Boards can be driven by the RFS Frontend ETU1 boards (will be eventually integrated during the ETU2 stage) FPGA Daughter Bd CPU Memory: SRAM, EEPROM & PROM FLASH RFS Memory (SRAM) RFS ADCs and Data Buffers Instrument & LNPS I/Fs S/C I/F We are checking the layout & expect to have boards in August, 2013.

14. AEB Development Antenna Electronics Board – Parts list Complete, 1 to qualify (from RBSP) – Breadboard in test (1 channel) – Common ICD to DCB/TDS in process 14 AEB single channel breadboard in testing

15. UMN Activity Preliminary designs are moving along Breadboarding is advanced Parts identification is moving along – PEM obtained and in up-screening process (starting with a DPA) Embraced the FPGA daughter board concept Redundancy/Reliability trade issues resolved – FIELDS now separated into two halves FIELDS1/DCB and FIELDS2/TDS No single point FIELDS failure – UMN split single LNPS into two pieces – UMN added a S/C interface to the TDS Systems Engineering has moved to UMN 15

16. TDS FPGA Block Diagram 16

17. UMN Activity 17 TDS BB2 – being populated FPGA daughter board outlline ProASIC3000 flash-based FPGA (in BGA) LNPS BB1 demonstration

18. SPP Fields DFB DFB Science: Finalized Sensor inputs; gain states, band-pass (except SCM – in process) Defined: Coordinated Burst implementation, Digital Burst Memory (size & no of buffers and channels), Spectra and Cross-Spectra DFB Prototype: Prototype design complete, layout review Tues 7/16, quick turn fab planned All FPGA modules for prototype bring-up complete Board will be used for most of early development and then for testing/characterization of Sidecar ASICs after moving to ETU board DFB ETU: Schematic in process for Xilinx FPGA Daughter Card FPGA development status shown in separate slides DFB Flight: Received Sidecar ASICs; EIDP/workmanship deviation released this week, risk added Continued EEE parts submittal to PCB for approval, no known issues at this time SPP Quarterly Review 7/18/13

19. Likelihood of Occurrence (probability) Consequence of Occurrence (Impact) 5 4 3 2 1 12345 HighMediumLow (Criticality) P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass IDTITLEPICritRetire At FF-DFB01Sidecar workmanship23 L Post PDR characterization testing F-DFB01 PM SPP Quarterly Review 7/18/13 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 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 vendor [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 Sidecar Risk

20. DFB Block Diagram 20 SPP Quarterly Review 7/18/13

21. DFB FPGA Architecture SPP Quarterly Review 7/18/13

22. DFB FPGA Development Status 22 SPP Quarterly Review 7/18/13 7/18/13 Module NameVHDL CodeSimulationLab Testing Top Level Module100%0% SIDECAR ASIC Interface100%60%0% Mid-Freq Filters100%25%0% Low-Freq Filters100%25%0% Triggers100%0% Waveform Player75%0% Digital Burst Memory (DBM) [Prototype]100%0% Digital Burst memory (DBM) [Flight]0% Spectra/Cross-Spectra50%0% SDRAM controller fpr DBM50%0% SRAM controller for Spectra/Cross-Spectra100%20%0% SRAM controller for Data Processor100%20%0% Command Processor75%20%0% Data Processor (CCSDS packetizer, data compression) 50%0% SCM Calibration Signal Generator0% Simulation Testbench20%10%0%

23. SPP MAG Status Some scheduled MAG activities have slipped; however, we are now in receipt of most information (ICDs, etc.) and materials needed, and we have a clear understanding of the path to PDR. The AC Heater (ACHE) PCBs have been laid out and procured. They will arrive next week and will be populated and tested ASAP. Macor bobbins and other procurements are nearing completion, facilitating the build up of the ETUs. Significant progress with thermal modeling for the MAG sensors has allowed a better understanding of constraints and mitigations of the thermal range; we are interested in results from Gail Martin on any additional power available. Thermal testing (-50 to +50 C) of GSE sensor (Macor base) is currently being conducted in a non-windowed thermal vacuum chamber (see photo on next slide). First goal is to determine how fast we can cycle. Design of a composite base for the ETU MAG sensors is completed. Ongoing concerns include: MAG sensor placement on boom relative to spacecraft, power, etc., available to increase low end MAG sensor temperature, alignment error budget numbers, boom harness plan, conclusion of L4 requirements & ICDs

24. MAG thermal vacuum chamber #1 Chamber shown at right permits operating over a large temperature range (order of -100 to +100 C) at < 10^-5 torr. (Same aluminum cylinder is also the “insert” for the windowed TV chambers.) Currently instrumented (8 thermistors) and being used to determine the rate at which we can cycle the MAG “GSE” sensor temperature, which has consequences for all future thermal testing. Since chamber has no windows, the sensor alignment inside chamber cannot be determined, i.e., no calibration over temperature. We can calibrate zero levels, etc., before and after thermal cycling. If they do not change, then we can conclude that calibration as a function of temperature will be possible – adequate for PDR. TVC #1 working in GSFC Mag Lab.

25. FIELDS Schedule Summary of FIELDS Activities Worked ICD’s between MEP boards Built Breadboards Reviewed Parts lists with PMPCB Coordinated Reviews of Project documents Tested Antenna Thermal Test Model (France) Completed Optical properties tests  Conducted Distortion tests MAG TVAC Chamber Completed Breadboard Tests in Progress  MEP ETU Frame designs Accommodating AEB and RFS Planned Peer Reviews with Team (SPF_MGMT_011F_ReviewMatrix.xls) Keys to Next Quarter (to Nov 2013)  Level 4 Instrument Requirements  Peer Reviews Complete  Layouts Nearing Completion  Pre-IPDR Documents Complete  Antenna at TRL 6  FIELDS Phase CDE Proposal

26. FIELDS Schedule Peer Review Schedules

27. FIELDS iPDR Readiness Schedule FIELDS Schedule

28. CRITICAL PATH ETU I&T FLT I&T ETU DFB FLT ANTs iCDR

29. 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 Evaluation Date: 07/12/13 P F2 P F5 P F6 P F7 PS F9 FIELDS Instrument Risks Status IDTITLEPICritRetire At F9Magnetic Sensor Qualification34 M MAG Thm Test by I-CDR (~1/15) F12Magnetic Cleanliness43 M Mission I&T (~8/16) F7ElectroStatic Contamination33 M Mission I&T (~8/16) F16MEP Thermal Environment33 M Parts confirmed at I-PDR (11/13) F5Survival Thermal Environment34 M SCM & MAG Env. Qual (~11/14) F10Antenna Qualification23 L Ant. Qual (11/13) F6Magnetic Sensor Interference43 L ETU I&T (~8/14) F11SCM dependence on Solar Orbiter22 L SO FLT SCM Complete F1 S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination13 L Mission I&T (~8/16) F2Plasma Wake Effects13 L Mission CDR (~3/15) CS F10 CS F11 P F12 Mitigation Plans in Place for All FIELDS Risks S F14 P F16

30. FIELDS Funding Spending : -15% Runout : Sept. 2013

31. FIELDS UCB Labor Labor cumulative over budget by 6%

32. FIELDS Subcontracts

33. Technical  Parts Approvals are all “Provisional” stuck awaiting “radiation evaluation.”  MEP 65C requirement remains a power and parts concern  MAG Level 3 (PAY-37) needs “5 nT accuracy” term defined better (recommend “1 degree”) Cost  Adding Redundancy may add cost, complexity and schedule Schedule  ICON selection caused temporary loss of manpower: only 1 spot remains to be filled Retired (Listed last quarter)  AEB circuitry having trouble fitting on a 6”x9” board.  SCM funding was approved in France  GSFC backup SCM must begin soon to be ready for iPDR  FIELDS Frequency plan is a real struggle, may have power/tm impacts FIELDS Issues & Concerns

34. Backup

35. 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 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 LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If S/C design does not include EMI shielding and EMC mitigations 13 3 Then FIELDS will not be able to measure small signals as required Last Updated08/10/11 Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 F1-P: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 BC A

36. 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: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 A P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

37. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F3-CS: Foreign Funding Issues Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AFund backup options for TNR and SCM09/11 4 4 16 B Decision to proceed with foreign sources for SCM Remove TNR/HFR from CNES and select alternate option for TNR/HFR 06/12 3 4 12 C CNES proposal for next phase (SCM) Implement replacement plan for TNR/HFR include budget/schedule & open new technical risk capturing the technical development of the new option 09/1214 4 DKDP-C11/1314 4 ECNES Phase C Commitment 12/13 (TBR) Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 20 15 10 5 Risk F3-CS: Foreign Funding Issues Current Assessment HIGH LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If foreign funding sources fail 4 4 16 Then we may lose the search coil sensors or electronics Last Updated 12/12/12 F3-CS: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 A P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 B C D E

38. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F5-P: Survival Thermal Environment Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade APreliminary thermal analysis/test to confirm if the thermal design is adequate 06/12 24 8 BGSFC MAG Ops & Survival Thermal Test06/1214 4 CAPL test high-efficiency blankets on MAG Boom mock-up (prior to ETU Env. Test). 08/14 (TBR) 14 4 DSCM & MAG Environmental Qualification11/14Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F5-P: Survival Thermal Environment Current Assessment Medium LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the survival thermal environment for the SCM and MAG does not meet the sensors’ minimum temperature requirements, 3 4 16 Then additional heater power will be required to avoid instrument failure. Last Updated 04/12/13 D F5-P: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 C AB P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

39. 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 liklihood dues to APL ownership of MAG boom. Will ‘buy down’ when commitment to sufficient sensor separation is made 06/1313 3 BETU I&T complete08/14Retire 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, 43 6 Then their interference will compromise the magnetic measurements. Last Updated06/14/13 A B F6-P: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

40. 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: Risk Burn Down 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

41. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F8-PSM: Magnetic Sensor / SCM Dynamic Range Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A MAG/FGM Trade Closure SCM Dynamic range portion is retired, the SCM/MAG compatibility is still an issue 6/25/12: decision made to cover gap in dynamic range by sampling the MAG faster 6/12 Retired Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F8-PSM: Magnetic Sensor / SCM Dynamic Range Current Assessment Retired LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the combined MAG & SCM concept does not cover the required dynamic range and bandwidth, 33 9 Then there may be a loss of data in certain frequency bands. Last Updated06/25/2012 A F8-PSM: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

42. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F9-PS: Magnetic Sensor Qualification Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade APlan thermal testing of a representative MAG sensor (by I-PDR) 11/13 24 8 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 MEDIUM LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the MAG sensor is not qualified for the number of operational thermal cycles, 34 12 Then the sensor may fail in orbit. Last Updated08/10/11 A B F9-FS: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

43. 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 DAntenna ETU thermal testing; Antenna Qualification (I-PDR) ~11/13 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 Updated05/17/2013 A C F10-PS: Risk Burn Down 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

44. 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 4 Then the SCM for FIELDS delivery will be delayed. Last Updated12/12/12 A B C D F11-S: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

45. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade AMagnetics plan draft (prior to I-PDR)06/1333 9 BMagnetics plan final (prior to I-CDR)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 MEDIUM LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the S/C exhibits high residual magnetic fields (AC or DC), 43 12 Then the magnetic measurements will be contaminated. Last Updated08/10/11 A B C D F12-P: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

46. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F12-P: Magnetic Cleanliness Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A Study the possibility of making a simple surface voltage measurement on the MAG boom as a baseline for the sunward electric field complete 08/2012 Drop likelihood to 1 BAdd third axis electric field to the complement of measurements (draft ICD in May)05/2013 Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F13-P: Third Axis Electric Field Measurement Current Assessment LOW LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If S/C electrostatic center is near the TPS and highly variable, 1 3 12 Then FIELDS will fail to measure the sunward electric fields. Last Updated2/15/2012 A F13-P: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

47. * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F14-S: Phase B Contract Current Assessment MEDIUM LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the UCB Phase B contract or UCB Phase B subcontracts lapse (due to insufficient lead time to get subcontracts to teammates), 42 8 Then then the early Phase B deliverables and testing schedule will be delayed. Last Updated04/19/2012 A F14-S: Phase B Contract Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6 ID Risk Mitigation Plan F11-S: SCM Dependence on Solar Orbiter Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade APhase B contracts (to UCB and teammates) in placeTBD41 4 BReplan of early Phase B deliverables & testing completeTBDRetire Risk B

48. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade ANew CNES management to evaluate and sign the SCM LOA03/1313 3 B if no agreement from CNES in place by 4/13, fund backup option at Goddard Funding commitment made – retire risk 06/13 Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F15-CS: SCM Funding Issues Current Assessment MED LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If foreign funding sources fail 33 12 Then we may lose the French search coil sensor and would switch to the backup Last Updated06/14/13 A B F15-CS: Risk Burn Down Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6

49. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F6-P: Magnetic Sensor Interference Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade ADetermine if the MAVEN thermal design is adequate for FIELDS01/1313 3 BConfirm all parts meet the MEP high temp AFT bu I-PDR11/13Retire 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 MED LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If the MEP high temperature AFT remains over 55 deg C 33 12 Then FIELDS heritage electronics may need to be re-designed to accommodate the higher flight temperature. Last Updated5/17/13 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

50. Risk Notes: April 2013 F5 – Survival Thermal Environment (chart 7)chart 7 - new data elevates risk over concern regarding the MAG thermal model (probability increase to 3). May need more heater power then what is allocated - believe an updated thermal model is needed to proceed in lowering this risk F15 – SCM Funding (chart 17)chart 17 - FIELDS had a discussion with the Backup SCM lead at GSFC; it was determined that the heritage SCM is larger and heavier than the French device. - Thus, substantial redesign work will be required to accommodate the GSFC unit. - On the plus side, though, GSFC is available to support SPP on this effort, with a baseline schedule beginning in June 2013 (if needed) - believe an updated thermal model is needed to proceed in lowering this risk

51. Risk Notes: February 2013 1)F10 – Antenna Qualification (chart 12): Risk burn-down updated to reflect the current state of Antenna Qualification testing:chart 12 APL is completing materials testing on the coupons that underwent high-temp testing at Glenn Research to determine if the material properties were affected by the high temperatures. The antenna qualification thermal testing (currently scheduled for March 2013) may be moved to September 2014. This would still permit testing to be completed prior to FIELDS I-PDR. 2) F13 – Third Axis Electric Field (chart 15): Lowered likelihood to “1” based on the completion of determining that it’s possible to do the measurement. Added the final step of confirming the addition of this to the complement of measurements in the draft ICD in May 2013.chart 15

52. Risk Notes: January 2013 1)F15 – SCM Funding Issues (chart 17): Decrease the likelihood from 4 to 3 per discussions at NASA headquarters, in international affairs, are proceeding with CNES. Detailed discussions have commenced.chart 17

53. Risk Notes: December 2012 1)F3 - Foreign Funding (commitment) (chart 7): - Risk retired and replaced with a more relevant, SCM-specific risk; New risk F15 – SCM Funding Issueschart 7 2)F15 – SCM Funding Issues (chart 17): If foreign funding sources failchart 17 then we may lose the French search coil sensor and would switch to the backup - created to capture the SCM-specific funding issues - expect CNES to re-evaluate SCM funding by Jan or Feb ‘13 - if CNES does not sign the LOA explore: - alternate HW source (3D Plus) for LPCE; or - funding the backup option at Goddard 3) F16 – MEP Thermal Environment (chart 18): If the MEP high temperature AFT remains over 55 deg C; Then FIELDS heritage electronics may need to be re-designed to accommodate the higher flight temperature. - MEP panel temperature is expected to be 55 deg C so, the allowable flight temperature may be 65 deg C which may lead to some parts issues. Change approach to mitigation if it's determined that parts need to be changed.chart 18 - Determine if the MAVEN thermal design is adequate for FIELDS (end of 1/13) - Confirm all parts meet the MEP high temp AFT (by iPDR)