GLAST LAT Project Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 GLAST Large Area Telescope: LAT Face to Face July 17-18, 2003 Lowell A. Klaisner Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Klaisner@slac.stanford.edu 650-926-2726 1 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Outline for this meeting • • • • • • • • • Report on the JOG meeting and the rebaselining process Get input on how we can be more effective in executing the project Review the Strawman schedule – Identify conflicts – Identify plan to closure (by DOE review 7/31) Initial discussions of how to meet the funding profile Subsystem milestones for the next 3 months Interdependencies – TEM & TEMPS integration with CAL modules – DAQ EGSE for subsystem testing Subsystem reports Business – Combining monthly meetings – Improving communications Capture Action Items 2 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Overview • Motivation for reviewing cost and schedule – CNES in France deciding to not fund LAT work – Completion of CDR/CD-3 • Design has reached a level of maturity • Construction of flight hardware beginning • Outcome – LAT program needs an additional $17.2 M – Fabrication Phase needs an additional $11.8 M – Operating and commissioning needs an additional $5.5 M • Primary open issue is the time phasing of the available funds – Additional needs for the fabrication phase in FY04 = $7.6 M – Additional funding for the fabrication phase in FY04 • NASA $3.0 million • DOE $0.0 million 3 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Additional Costs to GLAST Mission Additional Costs Fabricate CDEs using US funds Tracker EM overruns ACD overruns Electronics Manufacturing costs Mechanical Design / Fab Schedule Delay Increase to Contingency Total Added Costs FY03 FY04 $2.1 $0.5 $2.1 $1.0 $0.9 $0.8 $2.0 $1.0 $0.7 $1.7 $1.7 $2.7 $8.5 $3.4 $2.7 $2.6 FY05 FY06 Total $4.2 $1.5 $0.9 $0.8 $2.0 $5.4 $2.4 $17.2 All values in millions of dollars 4 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Costs that are not fabrication costs FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Total $1.0 $2.7 $3.7 Recognize LAT environmental test as commissioning activity Recognize IOC Operating Costs are not part of fabrication $0.2 $1.0 $0.6 Total non-fabrication costs $0.2 $1.0 $1.6 $1.8 $2.7 $5.5 Note: These reductions represent an equivalent increase commission/operating costs 5 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Definition of CD-4 Definition of CD-4 Background: When the instrument is completed and functionally tested there is a preenvironmental test review. Then the instrument is shipped from SLAC to a test facility for environmental testing. That is followed by a pre-shipment review, and the instrument is sent to the observatory integrator for integration. Proposal: Presently, CD-4 is defined by successful completion of the pre-shipment review. Using the successful completion of the pre-environmental review is more consistent with present practice on DOE projects. (The instrument will be complete and will meet the functional requirements at that point.). The effect is that the support of the instrument during the environmental test will be in the commissioning phase, similar to the commissioning of other DOE high energy physics detectors. Therefore, the proposal is to define the successful completion of the pre-environmental review as meeting the requirements for CD-4. 6 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Definition of the IOC Definition of the Instrument Operation Center Background: The standard practice with DOE high energy physics detectors is that the operations center for the detector is developed by the scientific collaboration and not included with the construction of the detector. The difference with the LAT project is that the data is gathered remotely, on-orbit, and passed through a Mission Operation Center to the IOC. This requires a level of coordination of requirements and interfaces with the mission resources that is not required with local accelerator based detectors. Proposal: At present, the IOC is included in the construction project. It should be implemented by the science collaboration to be consistent with current practice and to take advantage of the resources in that group. Nonetheless, in the case of the LAT, there is a coordination effort required within the project. An IOC subsystem manager within the project is needed to provide this interface between the IOC, the instrument management and the mission management. The proposal is to include the IOC manager in the management structure of the instrument and he/she is funded by the construction project. The remainder of the costs will be funded by SLAC operating funds and collaboration resources 7 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Net Change to the Fabrication Phase Total Added Costs Total non-fabrication costs Net change to the Fab Phase FY03 $2.6 -$0.2 FY04 $8.5 -$1.0 FY05 $3.4 -$1.6 FY06 $2.7 -$2.7 Total $17.2 -$5.5 $2.4 $7.6 $1.8 $0.0 $11.8 8 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Funding Guidance Funding guidance for the LAT Project NASA increased Fab funding NASA increase to commission DOE increased Fab funding DOE increase to operating/commission FY03 FY04 FY05 $1.8 $3.0 $0.1 $0.2 $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $0.5 $4.9 $1.1 $2.1 $4.0 Total NASA Contribution Total DOE Contribution $1.8 $0.3 New Funding for the Fab Phase Net change to the Fab Phase Available Fab phase funding Total Funding Shortfall FY06 Total $1.4 $6.8 $1.9 $5.0 $3.6 $8.4 $2.7 $17.2 $3.0 $1.0 $2.5 $6.0 $1.4 $1.4 $8.6 $8.6 $2.4 $1.9 $7.6 $3.0 $1.8 $6.8 $0.0 $0.0 $11.8 $11.8 $0.5 $4.6 -$5.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.4 9 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Total Fabrication Phase Cost and Funding Previous $35.4 $37.6 $2.2 FY03 $35.1 $33.5 -$1.6 FY04 $24.6 $31.0 $6.4 26.0% FY05 $12.8 $19.6 $6.8 53.1% Total $107.9 $121.7 $13.8 New Fab Phase Cost New Fab Phase Funding New Fab Contingency Contingency as % of this years cost $35.4 $37.6 $2.2 $37.5 $35.9 -$1.6 $31.5 $38.6 $7.1 22.6% $12.9 $21.4 $8.5 65.9% $117.3 $133.5 $16.2 Baseline cost at risk* Contingency as percent fo cost at risk $54.3 25% New cost at risk* Contingency as percent fo cost at risk $63.7 25% Baseline Fab Phase Cost Baseline Fab Phase Funding Baseline Fab Contingency Contingency as % of this years cost *Cost at Risk = Estimated cost to compete minus EPO costs Note: with the $4.6M shortfall in FY04 the available contingency is $2.5M or 8% 10 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Stanford University Loan • Stanford University is willing to loan the project $700K to bridge from FY 04 into FY 03 – The need for additional funds in FY 03 has decreased • The mission office at Goddard has helped with ’03 • The proposed change to IOC funding reduces FY 03 fabrication phase costs by $200K • This loan would only make the FY 04 cash flow problem worse • The project proposes to not exercise this loan in FY 03 – It may be possible to negotiate as similar loan for ~$1 million to bridge from FY 05 into FY 04 11 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Descope Options to Preserve Schedule LAT and Mission designs are highly optimized. All identified descopes that are effective are also painful. Most options address potential schedule slips. Previously moved beam test from before I&T to Comm. Phase oTier 1 Reprogram I&T prep and assembly of first towers Reprogram calibration modules for beam testing to be last modules fabricated – add 2 weeks float Move environmental testing to Spectrum Astro o Tier 2 Build 16 modules, Fly 14 (Baseline -- Build 18 modules, Fly 16) Science impact: degradation of Aeff and FOV o Tier 3 Build 14 modules, Fly 12 Science impact: Significant degradation of Aeff and FOV (below level-1 requirements) 12 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Summary • • • • • • • • • Project is starting fabrication of flight hardware – Completed the CD-3/CDR The instrument design is mature A review of cost and schedule indicates that the project needs $17.2M increase in funding to have adequate cost contingency Also the project needs an additional 3 months of schedule to have adequate schedule contingency Define CD-4 as the successful completion of the pre-test review – The Fabrication Phase needs a $11.7M increase – CD-4 date is unchanged Some reorganization of the LAT to better address this next phase Increased participation by the NASA, DOE and Laboratory management to assure resources are available The open issue is the time phasing of the funding – Funding needs to be moved from FY05 to FY04 OR – The work needs to be reprogrammed to move activities from FY04 to FY05 With a $1 M loan from SU, $3.6 M of work needs to move DOE Rebaseline review on July 31, 2003 13 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Feedback • Get input on how we can be more effective in executing the project 14 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 LAT Working Schedule Available: GRID 4/29 /04 Available: TKR A/B 4/15 /04 CAL A/B 5/20/04 Complete CAL 1-14 22 wk Available: TKR 13/14 10/28/04 CAL 13/14 10/21/04 Available: ACD 9/21/04 Elex 9/10/04 X-LAT 8/2/04 8 wk FLOAT 10/28/04 5/20/04 7/1/04 Prep GRID 3 wk Install Tower A 8 wk Critical Path Install Towers B,1-12 13 wk 4 wk float 4/21/05 System Test 16 wk LAT ASSEMBLY 714/05 12 wk FLOAT Install Towers 13/14 2 wk 7/21/05 Ship LAT 1 wk Fabrication CD-4 Install Global items 6wk 11/11/04 12/23/04 11/3/05 Environmental Testing 15 wk 4 wk FLOAT LAT RFI 12/1/05 Commission 15 GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 Remainder of the meeting • Initial discussions of how to meet the funding profile • Subsystem milestones for the next 3 months • Interdependencies – TEM & TEMPS integration with CAL modules – DAQ EGSE for subsystem testing • Subsystem reports • Business – Combining monthly meetings – Improving communications • Capture Action Items 16