1. Solar Probe Plus FIELDS Quarterly Management Feb 23, 2015 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management1

2. Agenda Project Overview Technical Status 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 Tour and Demonstration in Area 52 and ½. 2/23/2015FIELDS 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 iCDR Complete Funding Contract Value: $37.17 M Funding Value (mod 28):$19.85 M Unallocated Future Expense :$ 0.70 M End Date:9/29/2018 Current EAC (533):$37.17 M Milestones (Phase C) FIELDS CPT#1Feb 2015 Oct 2014 MEP TV CompleteMar 2015 Dec 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 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management

4. FIELDS Instrument Antenna Status Successful Tests V1234 Capacitance Model Capacitance Test V1234 Breadboard Hot & Cold TVAC Deployment and Torque Margin V1234 Vacuum Oven Tests - materials and electrical isolation qualification V1234 TTM SAO Solar Environment Simulator – successful thermal balance, but thermal shield damage V1234 EM Room Temp. Deployment V1234 EM Antenna Random & Sine Vibration Tests V1234 EM Monopod & Fork Random Vibration Tests V5 EM Random and Sine Vibration Tests V1234 EM Antenna V5 EM V12 EM Monopod & Mid Cage

5. Main Components Inboard and Outboard triaxial fluxgate sensors mounted on Mag Boom APL-provided boom cabling Redundant Magnetometer electronics boards in MEP Heritage 79 GSFC fluxgates flown since 1966 SPF MAG based heavily on MAVEN, RBSP, and Juno magnetometers Proven process and facilities for design, build, test, and calibration Performance Dynamic Range: ± 65,000 nT Ranges : 4 ( ± 1024, ± 4096, ± 16384, ± 65536 nT) Bandwidth: DC to 100 Hz Vector Accuracy (typ): < 0.2% ± 1 nT Offset Stability (typ): +/- 0.2 nT / year Alignment Accuracy: < 0.1 degree Alignment Knowledge: < 0.1 degree referenced to optical cube Noise (typ): 3x10 -3 nT/sqrt(Hz) at 1 Hz Quantization step, 1024 nT range: 31 pT (16 bit resolution) Sampling Rate: 256 samples/0.874 sec (~ 292 Hz) Proportional heater operating synchronously at 150 kHz FIELDS Instrument Fluxgate Vector Magnetometers

6. Main Components 2 single-band antennas (10 Hz-50 kHz range) 1 double-band antenna (10 Hz-50 kHz & 1 kHz-1 MHz) 4-channel miniaturized preamplifier inside sensor foot Electrical Interfaces LF (X, Y, Z) and MF (X) signal outputs Calibration signal Heater power 1 Temp Sensors for Thermal Control 1 Temp Sensor for Telemetry Specifications Electrical Power : 270 mW Vibration: 25 grms Shock: 2000 g Operational Temp: -50 to +80 C Survival Temp: -60 to +100 C Performances (ETU) Sensitivity at 1kHz: 20fT/Hz -1/2 Sensitivity at 100kHz: 5fT/Hz -1/2 FIELDS Instrument Search Coil Magnetometer LF frequency bandwidth specification MF frequency bandwidth specification SCM ETU

7. FIELDS Instrument Preamps & Antenna Electronics Preamps Low Input capacitance: 10pF High bandwidth output: > 50MHz Low Noise: 3nV/√Hz Mid & Low bandwidth out: > 5MHz Low Power : 230mW Antenna Electronics Board (AEB) AEB1 controls V1,V2 and V5 AEB2 controls V3, V4 Delivers BIAS, STUB, HEATSHIELD and +/-15V (Floating) for each antenna Controls Preamp Bias Resistor network. Provides V5 Heater power Provides housekeeping temps, V and I monitors

8. FIELDS Instrument DCB and RFS DCB Main Features RTAX-4000 FPGA daughter board with Coldfire processor running at 19.2 MHz S/C Command & Telemetry Interfaces FIELDS Clock Generation/Synchronization and Timing Management (Master Clock = 38.4 MHz) Controls AEB, RFS, MAG, DFB, TDS, and LNPS Processes MAG, DFB, RFS Survey Data Records/Dumps DFB & TDS Data using 32GB Memory Provides 16 analog housekeeping channels RFS Main Features Receives V1-V4, SCM MF signals Digitizes at 38.4MHz in High or Low (average by 8) Frequency Modes Produces High and Low Frequency Spectra, Cross Spectra, Phase and Coherence Survey Data Uses Rad-hard 12-bit 50 Msps A/D converters 2 identical channels each with High/Low gain Selection of 2 Differential or Single-Ended signals Low Noise: < 7nV/√Hz from 30kHz to 16MHz

9. FIELDS Instrument Digital Fields Board Flight-Like EM2 9 inputs: 5 E-field antennas 4 search coil channels Anti-aliasing filters / Gain stages FPGA processing 26 signals digitized @ 150 kS/s FPGA DB ASIC Performs analog signal conditioning and digital signal processing Generates time domain and spectral domain data products, (DC – 75kHz) - Programmable gain states - Burst memory - Flexible configurations - Search coil calibration signal

10. FIELDS Instrument TDS - Time Domain Sampler Centers on RTAX4000 FPGA daughter board with LEON-3 processor IP Records impulsive events (waveforms) Event data gathered by 16-bit ADCs at ~2MSa/s Simultaneous acquisition of SWEAP particle counts – wave particle correlation Event data stored directly into 16 MB event memory catalog Event scoring, best events telemetered FIELDS2 interfaces – S/C, DCB, SWEAP, – MAGi, AEB2, LNPS2 Telemetry: 10,000 b/s – Highly programmable

11. FIELDS Instrument Low Noise Power Supply Input from : 22 to 35 VDC Temp range : -25C to +65C – Prime mission runs at 46C Sync : 150 kHz Output: DC voltage supplies – 1.8V, 3.3V, 4V, 5V, ±6V, ±12V – ±100V (with 100ms delay) Total Secondary Power: – 8W for LNPS1 – 4.5W for LNPS2 – Loads increase with temperature Measured values Monitors: 10 Voltages, 2 Temps Controls: SCM heater (in LNPS1)

12. FIELDS Instrument Integration and Test FIELDS I&T in Progress in Room 214B (Area 52.5) FIELDS Configuration: –LNSP1 EM –MAG1 EM –DCB EM2 –AEB1 EM –DFB EM2 –AEB2 EM –TDS EM1 –MAG2 EM –LNSP2 EM –PREAMPS 1-5

13. FIELDS Instrument Resources Mass Detailed Measured values of EM assemblies Harnessing estimated from MEP to Sensors Power MEP Power is ample at room temperature MEP Power at maximum temp is limiting factor – Measured across temperatures Operational heater power has good margins Telemetry Survey data – 15Gb/perihelion Select data saved in internal Flash Memory Selected data played back during cruise – 5Gb/perihelion ResourceNTECBEMargin Mass BoE: Many EM measurements 19.65 kg17.69 kg11.1% Operational Power @.25AU BoE: Many EM measurements 32.21 W27.27 W18.1% Survival Power BoE: Thermal Analyses 12.10 W10.78 W12.3% Orbital Data Volume 20 Gbits N/A

14. FIELDS Instrument Engineering Model Status MEP EM Integrated  MEP EM CPT this week  Antenna TV this week  Whip Tests  UCB & APL Working on “Pathfinder” Vibration Tests in March  “Final Design” Tests in June  Additional Tests on PSA/TSA/TPS in September

15. FIELDS Instrument ETU Detailed Schedule 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management15

16. FIELDS Instrument iCDR Status, RFA Status ICDR Results  Post-EM Testing Review to be held Requests for Action

17. Keys to Success 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management17 November Keys to Success  Key1: Verify Antenna Shield Properties Once the Shield passes Vib, Retest Thermal Properties (Mar ’15) Key2: Verify MEP Low Noise Operation Verified Analog : Antenna to A/D converter (End-to-End)  Additional Tests of Different Grounding Configurations  Key3: Verify MEP Thermal Design Abandon plans for an MEP TV before CDR Use better models to predict temperatures

18. FIELDS Instrument Development Status 82 days funded schedule reserve prior to delivery Critical path is through TDS electronics w/ 69 days slack Antennas have additional 70 days slack

19. FIELDS Instrument Manpower S/C System Support Delivery PERPSR LS Post CDR Peak Effort Subsystem Deliveries Integration

20. Financial (533) 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management20

21. Oct14 Earned Value/WBS 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management21

22. Jan15 Earned Value/WBS 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management22

23. Funding 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management23

24. Project Subcontracts 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management24 FIELDS UCB Subcontracts Status, as of mid-November 2014

25. 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: 2/20/15 P F2 P F6 P F7 FIELDS Instrument Risk Status IDTITLEPICritRetire At F1 S/C Conducted and Radiated Noise Contamination 54H Mission I&T (~8/16) F12Magnetic Cleanliness53 H Mission I&T (~8/16) F18Antenna Thermal Environment34M Mission CDR (03/15) F19Spacecraft Interface Uncertainty 34 M Mission CDR (03/15) F20Preamp Coax Cables24M Mission CDR (03/15) F7Electro-Static Contamination33M Mission I&T (~8/16) F11SCM dependence on Solar Orbiter32M SO FLT SCM Complete F10Antenna Qualification23L Updated SC & Antenna Thermal Models (02/15) F6Magnetic Sensor Interference22L Mission CDR (03/15) F2Plasma Wake Effects13L Mission CDR (3/15) CS F10 CS F11 P F12 Mitigation Plans in Place for All FIELDS Risks P F18 S F19 P F20

26. Risk Board Notes: February 2015 F12: Magnetic Cleanliness Updated burn-down plan to go green when SC Swing Test Plan is confirmed at MCDR

27. Issues and Concerns 2/23/2015FIELDS Quarterly Management27 1.MEP Thermal: Unable to close the gap between Electrical Engineers and Thermal using a real TV test before iCDR. The impact is that the EE’s will have to derate their parts excessively. The board sizes may grow, causing the MEP box to grow, and mass to increase. 2.Antenna: A history of “no-mass” increases has resulted in a very lightweight design. The recent up-tick in vibration loads resulted in damage which we can fix reasonably soon. However, the unit was designed in an environment of “no mass is acceptable.” The concern is that we will continue to see failures of other parts of the design as we fix the first set of problems.

28. Backup

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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:This should include a characterization the final DC fields of the spacecraft via a spacecraft swing test. Design freeze at M-CDR confirms long-enough MAG Boom 03/15 23 6 CMagnetics 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), 5315 Then the magnetic measurements will be contaminated. Last Updated 02/20/15 A B C 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

36. 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 3 4 8 B General case has been resolved. Still need to resolve the deployment case by mission CDR. 02/23/15 – increased likelihood to 3 per iCDR recommendations. 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 01/23/15 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

37. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F5-P: Survival Thermal Environment Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A Instrument ICD and GI ICD signed -> lower risk 1/23/15… increase probability and likelihood based on continuing ICD & EDTRD changes. 12/14 3412 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 MED LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If Project continues to change interface control or requirements documents, 3412 Then it is unlikely FIELDS engineering models will be completed within the planned schedule. Last Updated 01/23/15 F19-S: Spacecraft Interface Uncertainty 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

38. 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

39. ID Risk Mitigation Plan F5-P: Survival Thermal Environment Event Date Assessment** Likeli- hood Conse- quence Risk Grade A Test expected launce vibrational levels for the V1-4 antennas with Antenna Flight Environments Test 07/16Retire Risk * Grade = Likelihood x Consequence ** Assessment is the remaining risk assessed after successful event completion Risk Grade 25 20 15 10 5 Risk F21-P: L aunch vibration environment effects on Antenna V1-4. Current Assessment Medium LikelihoodConsequence Risk Grade Risk Statement If actual vibrational levels exceed assumptions, 339 Then the antenna V1-4 electric fields measurements may be compromised. Last Updated 1/23/15 F22-P: Launch vibration environment effects on Antenna V1-4 Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4 201120122013201420152016 A P = Performance C = Cost S = Schedule M = Mass Plan Actual LevelRisk Grade* High 15-25 Medium 6-12 Low 1-6