Science Instrument Trimester Review
Antelope Valley Country Club – Palmdale, CA
12/11/08 – 8:00am PST
Participants:
USRA
NASA
DSI/DLR
SSSC
Instruments
B-G Andersson
Dana Backman
Eric Becklin
Dave Black
Hilary Smith Callis
Sean Casey
Jim DeBuizer
Sue Goodwin
Helen Hall
Murad
Hamidouche
Don Kniffen
Chris Koerber
Scott MacPhee
Nancy McKown
Martin Ruzek
Göran Sandell
Ravi Sankrit
Maureen Savage
Ralph Shuping
Bill Vacca
Nick Veronico
Mina Cappuccio,
ARC
Jim Cockrell, ARC
Scott Horner, ARC
Tim Krall, DFRC
Tom Roellig, ARC
Ehsan Talebi, ARC
Pasquale Temi, ARC
Alfred Krabbe, DSI
Dietmar Lilienthal, DLR
Hans Peter Röser, DSI
Bob Gehrz, U. Minnesota
Dominic Benford, GSFC
George Brims, UCLA
Ted Dunham, Lowell
Al Harper, U. Chicago
Mick Edgar, Caltech
Terry Herter, Cornell
Bob Hirsch, U Chicago
Randolf Klein, UC
Berkeley
Ian McLean, UCLA
Bob Pernic, U. Chicago
Matt Richter, UC Davis
(phone)
Johannes Staguhn,
NASA GSFC
Jonas Zmuidzinas,
Caltech
Action Items and Open Issues:
1. Look into the status of the crane and whether or not it is in the schedule. Report back to
Scott Horner and Martin Ruzek about when it will be finished and what it will be used for
(i.e. installing SIs?) – Tim Krall
2. Identify a single point of contact between the SI teams and the Platform for the MCCS –
Scott Horner
3. Distribute the tool control policy amongst Platform staff and gather more information
about how the rules are enforced – Tim Krall
4. Develop a plan for a dolly for getting things on and off the plane – Dave Black
5. Obtain more details about the schedule and who is the keeper of the master aircraft
schedule – Martin Ruzek
6. Locate and distribute Jürgen Stutzki’s report (Augsburg, summer ’02) on the aircraft’s
magnetic environment numbers on the plane – Martin Ruzek
7. Check on the availability of JWST arrays for EXES – Mina Cappuccio, Matt Richter,
Martin Ruzek
Detailed Notes:
1
The meeting was called to order at 8:40am.
Introduction – Martin Ruzek
A. Martin welcomes everyone and passes out a schedule he has put together of instrument
delivery, commissioning, and flight dates. He asks all for their feedback (not
immediately, but before Tuesday).
B. New agenda items: Dana will talk about EPO items and the International Year of
Astronomy, and Bob Brauer will not talk about GIDEP (requirement to track parts used
in instruments) at this time.
II.
Program Status – Scott Horner
A. Bad news: there is not enough money in FY’09 and the Science Project has been asked
to reduce cost. Scott has not yet been given a number for how much SI Development will
be cut, but this is probably coming.
1. Additionally, they are dealing with an issue with EXES. The instrument was found to
be underscoped, so Mina Cappuccio is now working with Matt Richter on putting
together a proposal. They will be allocated more money and some reshifting will also
occur.
2. There is a POP coming up in March to plan financially for the next five years, so
everyone should expect to hear from Martin. He urges everyone to think about what
their needs will be once their instrument is done.
3. Scott welcomes any suggestions people might have in solving this problem.
4. Carryover from FY’08 will help.
B. Scott was hoping to speak more on airworthiness, the Experimenter’s Handbook, and the
ICP, but he has not had enough time to work on these things.
C. GREAT, FLITECAM, and FORCAST all have Counterweight Racks. FORCAST
received their rack (a generation 2 rack) this week. Scott is hoping that GREAT and
FLITECAM’s racks will not need to be recalled. The question is one of longevity, so the
issue with these racks may not need to be addressed right now.
D. If anyone needs a PI rack, there are several in storage at Ames. Scott would like to make
sure that there are uniform casters on all instruments. He would like to select one caster
and ship them out with the rack. The Platform may be building a mounting mechanism.
1. Dave Black suggests that a dolly be built to make for easy transition.
E. Bob Pernic asks about the status of the crane. Tim Krall does not know, other than that it
is not done. Scott asks that Tim look into this and make sure it is in the schedule,
then send let us know when it will go in and what it will be used for (i.e. installing
SIs).
F. Scott will be sending the list of commands that will be implemented for the Early Science
build of the MCCS, but he needs to get it from Ting. It is the appendix of MCCS-SI-04.
This list was based on input from FORCAST and GREAT so it should not be a surprise.
G. Ralph is the point of contact for interface testing, but there needs to be a point of contact
identified on the AC side. Scott will attempt to identify this POC between the SI
teams and the Platform for the MCCS.
H. Tom Roellig asks if anyone uses Titanium in his instrument. A titanium company is
under indictment for fraudulently issuing certs for bad titanium.
I.
2
I. Martin brings up the budget again and says he will be asking for realistic budget profiles
through 2015 (what development and operating costs will be) so all teams should expect
emails from him.
III.
FLITECAM – Ian McLean
A. The instrument is complete and stable. They have had 8 successful observing runs at
Lick, have done 2 PhDs, and have had 3 papers published in ApJ.
B. The only tasks they have remaining is additional MCCS work (including hiring additional
software support), understanding the airworthiness requirements (they went a long way
towards these issues before), and making final installation of their 6 new filters (should
arrive in January).
C. The only issue they could identify for QA is unknown MCCS changes. They went all the
way up to tier 4 and began tier 4 testing, with positive results. They need to learn about
the new MCCS and implement needed changes.
1. To mitigate this issue, they need to hire a software person. They will only be able to
hire Jen Milburn back part time, and this may not be sufficient.
2. In order to cover this new person, they are asking for an additional $50K in FY’09
(from $150K to $200K).
D. FLITECAM has a dual filter wheel. The items in red on the filter slide are the new ones.
Some of these filters that were in the instrument were old and not meant for FLITECAM.
These have been reordered.
1. The L’, L, and M filters have long existed, but they have not been installed.
E. The documentation is in good shape for the time being. All documents are locked up and
are also available in electronic copy on their website. They have a complete draft ICP
and much software documentation complete.
F. The next major milestone is to receive the new filters and install them. Ian hopes that
Maureen will come to UCLA and help with the installation and that Erin Smith will also
be available.
G. The constraints on this work mostly have to do with delays in the SOFIA project. Staff
have had to be diverted to other projects in the UCLA lab. George Brims remains on
FLITECAM at 17%, but no other personnel are available until April ’09.
IV.
FORCAST – Terry Herter
A. The FORCAST Early Science goal is to emphasize the unique capabilities of SOFIA and
FORCAST by making observations at 30-40 m and demonstrating their high spatial
resolution in the mid-IR.
B. Another goal is to build collaborations between the SI team and external observations
through their partnership in Short Science with Mark Morris and Paul Harvey.
C. They do also plan to follow up Spitzer observations (i.e. regions that are too bright for
Spitzer, etc.).
D. They are still on track to ship to Palmdale on 9 January, with installation in late January
and flights in late May. If there are going to be Program slips, he would prefer to delay
shipping.
E. FORCAST is open right now and they are making some alignment adjustments. They
still need to check the final alignment of the arrays before shipping.
F. Because of the potential for grisms, they have lowered the dark currents (still in process
for the long wavelength channels). For the camera modes, this does not make a
difference.
3
G. They have ordered a new long wavelength array. The material has already been grown.
H. The optics are done, but they would really like new filters as this is a difficult
wavelength. Lakeshore has said they can make them.
I. Terry is slightly worried about documentation because the team has been focusing on
finishing the technical aspects of the instrument. It is minor work but it needs to be done.
J. They will not be requesting additional funds this year and have some carryover from
FY’09.
K. Terry shows a Galactic Center flight plan he has been working on with Allan Meyer.
There are roughly 45 minutes per leg on the Galactic Center, with a total of about 2
hours. The flight plan is for May 2, and things shift 4 minutes per day. There are some
times when the moon gets away and they would like to avoid these times.
L. Terry shows their potential observing plans.
M. FORCAST is ready – mechanisms and software are robust, funding is fine, detail
planning is almost complete for observations, etc. Terry is more worried about
documentation than anything. The new FPGA code and shift and add will be tested
during the next cooldown.
N. If there are program delays, he would like to improve on the 38 um throughput and
optimize data acquisition.
O. Terry emphasizes that he would like to know schedule details. They will be done with
Short Science flights by the summer and Basic Science flights start in the winter of 2010.
1. There appear to be schedule discrepancies; Pasquale believes that the early February
installation date will not be met. Martin and Scott will be meeting with Mike
Toberman next Tuesday and will know more then.
2. There will probably also be slips due to the fact that HIPO line ops will not be
finished this week and will go into January.
P. Pasquale brings up that they may have limited scanning capabilities.
V.
International Year of Astronomy Plans – Dana Backman
A. Dana would like to have instrument teams hold IYA events somewhere in their area. He
understands that all the teams are low on time and resources, so the EPO team will do all
the work.
B. Dana will call people in January to start planning these events.
C. Both the AAS and NASA are making IYA a priority. The goal is to have every
inhabitant of the US to look through a telescope in 2009.
VI.
GREAT – Dietmar Lilienthal and Göran Sandell
A. The Pre-Ship Review for GREAT took place last week in Bonn.
1. The objective was to evaluate both the instrument and the ground support equipment.
This includes functional and operational performance, interfaces, and airworthiness.
2. The PSR data package was delivered on October 31st and RIDs (Review Item
Discrepancies) on November 14th. Of the 87 submitted, 52 were closed, and 35 are
open (mostly minor changes to documentation).
3. The review found that most of the functional requirements were verified on the
instrument level and the instrument is ready and well-suited for Early Science.
4. All airworthiness documentation has been submitted and though the airworthiness
report from NASA has not yet been delivered, the team was assured that there were
no showstoppers.
4
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
VII.
A.
B.
C.
D.
5. Software requirements that affect the GREAT software are not understood and are a
concern.
6. Rolf Güsten is also concerned about how GREAT will actually be transported in the
DAOF. This needs to be further evaluated and is addressed in the RIDs. This is not
necessary for Short Science, but in the long run.
7. Documentation access is a concern for the GREAT team.
8. Documentation on the readiness of the DAOF is not currently available, but is
required by the GREAT team for timely review before they ship.
9. They believe that communication between all the parties is insufficient and they will
be involved in SOLIPT meetings in the future. They also want single points of
contact for various issues.
10. The state of the MCCS is a huge concern.
11. The conclusion that came out of the Pre-Ship Review is that the functional
performance of the instrument has been successfully demonstrated, the airworthiness
acceptance status is adequate, and that close-out of RIDs is necessary before the PI
finally decides he might be ready to ship on a date that he also determines is
appropriate.
There are two low frequency channels (1.25-1.5 THz, and 1.82–1.92 THz). These two
channels will be ready for Short Science (baseline). They are hoping for both the low
and mid frequency channels to be ready for Basic Science. The mid frequency channel
covers the important HD line. The 4.7 THz channel will not be available for Early
Science, but is a longer-term development.
The stoplight chart is all green save for the technical box for the Solid-State LO at 2.7
THz. There is a design for this and a contract in place, but it has not yet been
demonstrated that the LO can produce enough power to pump the mixer. All other risks
were described in the Pre-Ship Review slides.
There are some open airworthiness points, including the PI rack overturning moment, the
mechanical load analysis of the new cryostat clamps, and the CRTs that must be replaced
or covered.
Beam measurements of the low frequency 1 channel and how it is aligned with the focal
plane show compliance with requirements.
Göran shows several charts of instrument performance.
They plan to ship no later than 2/15/09. Other schedule items are on slide 16.
FIFI-LS – Randolf Klein
They have a few yellow items in their stoplight chart regarding the blue spectrometer.
They plan to use the red spectrometer during Early Science, and hope to have the blue
channel ready as well.
QA concerns include ghost images in the red spectrometer, which is a minor issue. They
are hardly visible when they observe a line source. But they hope to minimize these
images to minimize contamination of continuum sources. A similar issue has been
observed with PACS.
There are still some issues with the grating fine drive software (also minor). It mostly
works, but there are issues with the control loop. Debugging is underway.
They are concerned about the schedule status of airworthiness documentation. Work was
put on hold when the program shifted from FAA to NASA certification. Their test
5
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
VIII.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
particle, their System Safety Assessment, was submitted to NASA and they have been in
contact with Brad Neal about it.
1. More assistance from DSI is needed with airworthiness documentation.
Leslie Looney has been working with Murad Hamidouche on the Integration &
Commissioning Plan.
Randolf outlines the FIFI-LS team and their positions on slide 7.
The schedule shows readiness for flights in early 2010. They are focusing on the red
channel for early science, but hope that the blue will ready as well.
Dietmar asks if FIFI-LS will be ready for a Pre-Ship Review in November 2009. This
was discussed in Munich. Randolf says they will be. They have just begun discussing
whether the instrument will ship to Berkeley first or directly from Munich to Palmdale.
Randolf says the team would like to keep the instrument with the main part of the team in
Germany for as long as possible before shipping.
The version 1 software is just a fallback solution. The full software will be ready for
Early Science. They hope to begin ingesting data and testing with the DCS in the next 6
months.
The EOOP budget is fine and they are underspending a bit.
Since the last SITR, they have completed extensive performance tests of the red
spectrometer. They have corrected the misalignment, etc. The full list is on slide 11.
EOOP progress includes receiving the EMCCD guider camera, which is needed for
EOOP operations. It will soon be shipped to the MPE and integrated into FIFI-LS.
The data reduction pipeline has been built up to demodulated data and they are testing the
pipeline on real data from the tests.
The next steps will be to extend the pipeline and interface to the DCS.
In the analysis of data reduction, various algorithms have been developed. They will
gather all of this for one set of tools to build the data reduction pipeline.
Randolf shows a movie of flight through the cube, with the point source coming and
going. This was a monochromatic line source (scanning spectrally).
HAWC – Al Harper
The majority of HAWC’s components are operational.
Airworthiness has been on hold, but their SSA has been initiated and they have revised
their drawing package.
The stoplight chart is completely green!
They are still working on installing superconducting motors and completing flight
electronics. A detailed design of the warm optics should have been done by now, but
they could not get access to the mechanical engineer. The total time needed for the
design is a couple of months. Many of the design issues have been resolved and it is now
mostly a matter of producing the detailed drawings. Once that is done, the procurement
and fabrication will take a few months.
They are ready for MCCS integration testing, but are waiting for the availability of the
MCCS software.
They expect to start work again on airworthiness later in 2009.
They expect to complete everything and button it up in December, with integrated tests
beginning in January.
6
H. One issue that they have not quite resolved is the cold short that developed between a
bias and detector line. They may try to fix the short or install a replacement (spare)
drawer. They should have this resolved in a couple of weeks.
I. Al shows pictures of the baffle. The internal part is fabricated out of aluminum. The
paint is the standard black. The system is suspended on Kevlar fibers. The detector sits
in the central portion.
1. The previous version of the baffle did not have baffle plates inside.
2. They went to the new baffle because they were seeing a ghost image (similar to what
Randolf was describing with FIFI-LS) and traced it back to some reflections within
the old baffle.
3. It will be tested in January.
J. The fore optics design requires some access to the instrument that may be an issue during
flight. Eric urges Al to think about this. Al says they are prepared to make things
motorized if necessary.
K. One QA issue is the short in the JFET drawer. They still have the spare, but are hoping
to fix the problem. Jesse Wirth is heading the search for the short and they will hopefully
have an explanation of what it is soon. The decision about which drawer to use for the
January testing is still pending.
L. The spare JFET drawer has already been tested.
M. Funding is sufficient for this fiscal year.
N. Their schedule corresponds to the schedule USRA and the Platform are planning for.
IX.
CASIMIR – Jonas Zmuidzinas & Mick Edgar
A. Martin announces that the GIDEP presentation has been delayed. Several concerns have
been expressed, so he will go back to Ames and try to work out what the requirements
will be. We will discuss this as a group later.
B. Since the last meeting they began integrating the mixer into the flight cryostat and
functional tests will take place early next year.
C. The optics box has been fabricated. The welds look good. They also began assembly of
optics and electrical subsystems.
D. They have completed the preliminary design of the LO mount. The rehiring of their
mechanical engineer will help this work greatly.
E. Some schedule items are yellow in the stoplight chart because work in these areas has
just begun.
F. Their two major concerns are airworthiness documentation and software development
(lack of manpower).
G. They have a 550 GHz mixer ready to go.
H. JPL is fabricating the mixer chips; the CASIMIR team will do the integration. Additional
mixer blocks, etc. will be ready for next year’s integration.
I. The optics box is done – the optics went in with no problems. There is no glass in the
box yet. The big task will be developing the software.
J. They placed the order for the spectrometer and all cards have been built. Testing will be
done in the next week or so. They should have it next year and the new postdoc will
work on it. There is not much work to do on the spectrometer software.
K. They are using KOSMA software for instrument control and interface to the MCCS.
7
L. The receiver electronics design will be tested at the CSO. They have demonstrated
prototypes for all the components and some are flight ready. The CSO testing will occur
before flights begin.
M. So far they have received 20% of their funds, but expect to run out in January. Their
major concern is that they will lose their mechanical engineer, who is on contract from
JPL.
N. The schedule supports flying in 2010 or 2011. They expect their end-to-end tests to
occur in the middle of the year.
O. In the next year, they plan to test the 1.2 mixer, assemble all optics, do the end-to-end
test, acquire the 1 THz LO and install it. They will fabricate any remaining structures
(cash flow issue – need money on hand, but not supported by incremental funding) and
do more work on software. They will continue development of the advanced mixers.
X.
SAFIRE – Dominic Benford & Johannes Staguhn
A. Since the last SITR, they went on an observing run with their test instrument that was
very successful.
B. They have received all of their funding so have a full team in place.
C. They have completed their optical trade studies and are refining the detailed design.
D. They have begun the second-generation multiplexer design and fabrication.
E. Their stoplight chart is green as of a couple of days ago. However, there may now be
funding issues that will change this.
F. They have been making good progress on the large arrays and software development is
going well. Airworthiness is still a concern.
G. The only way to know how the detector is doing is to collect light and see how it
performs. Johannes shows the results of their last observing run.
H. There was a problem with the BUG detector, so Dominic completely redesigned it. It is
much improved and it works very well. They were able to achieve signal to noise at the
fundamental limit.
I. With the observing run they were able to show that they significantly decreased the
pickup noise in their data, improved detector pixel yield, eliminated stray beam, that the
blackening of the cold components reduced the load on detectors, etc.
J. They have been thinking about Fabry-Perot vs. grating for a long time. They feel that the
grating is a better choice.
K. FY’08 was the first year they received full funding. They had spent or committed all
their money by August, but there was some threat of NASA rescinding some of the
committed funds. They are attempting to cost it all very soon.
L. They recently received funding for “knock offs” of SAFIRE detectors.
M. Their work plan carries them out to commissioning flights in 2012. However, it appears
that they will receive much less in FY’09 and will probably have to lay people off and
put some work on hold. Dominic emphasizes that they can still make flights in 2012 if
they make the right choices, etc.
N. In the next few months, they will be doing much flight component design and
characterization. Most items have already been started.
O. Because they have not been building flight hardware, they do not have QA issues, though
they will be sure to keep QA in mind as they are building things.
P. They have delayed airworthiness work as per advice from Scott Horner.
8
Q. It is likely that their budget will be cut in half. They may need to let go of George
Voellmer and his support staff and it will be very difficult to continue without him. May
also have to cancel their contract with their new postdoc (scheduled to start in February).
XI.
HIPO – Ted Dunham
A. Ted finally received the airworthiness report from Brad, which is a memo to the AFSRB
recommending airworthiness approval.
B. Sent sample HIPO data to the DCS for ingestion, and do not yet know results.
C. They bought Mac minis, better monitors, and new CCDs. This led to much updating of
documentation.
D. They held their delta airworthiness TIM at the DAOF on 5 November. They have not yet
received the additional memo.
E. HIPO was installed on schedule on 11/17, but work was delayed because of problems
with the CDDS.
F. Since installation in 2004 in Waco, things have changed. Anything “significant” requires
a procedure with at least 5 signatures and many places for QA to sign off.
G. There was a complicated hand-off of roles and responsibilities due to bureaucracy. It was
more frustrating in writing than in actuality.
H. They encountered some problems such as the GPS antenna line having been moved,
some bad fibers, having to trim the insulation, and having to deal with the tool control
rules.
I. The stoplight chart is 100% green. They have some additional documentation and
software tasks to complete.
J. They had some carryover in FY’08, which was folded into FY’09 work (what is going on
now was supposed to happen last year).
K. Their remaining work summary is on slide 8. Ground performance testing is going on
now, and documentation work is ongoing. Pieces of their maintenance manual have been
broken out and made individual documents. Ted is concerned about the management of
these documents and who can make changes to what. For example, he only has a pdf of
the HIPO installation plan and couldn’t make changes if he wanted to.
L. The proposer’s manual and data analysis manual still need to be written.
M. Upgrades (mostly to software) are ongoing and they are still funding MIT for science
planning work (Jim Elliot).
N. There are a few QA issues:
1. Need to formalize the QA processes, especially the documentation processes and
folding in scientific activities into DFRC’s culture of flight testing. There is no
accepted precedent. The DC8 is a science project, but DFRC doesn’t like how it is
run.
2. QA needs to be educated on how a Science Instrument is run, and this is the
responsibility of the SI team. A lack of understanding slows progress.
a) Terry brings up that he gets QA requests from 4 or 5 people and we need a single
point of contact. This is new work and has not been budgeted for. Access to the
instruments is key; this is not a space-based mission. Making the instruments the
scope of space-based missions would raise the cost of each SI by a factor of 3-10.
b) The difference between Safety and Mission Assurance needs to be defined. Bob
Meyer is aware of this, but it has not been filtered through to the staff.
9
O. Ted passes along some advice: in taking HIPO off the telescope and putting it back on, a
wrench dropped a couple of times. The next day, there was talk of not allowing the SI
teams to install their own instruments. Ted suggests treating the aircraft like your
Science Instrument, with kid gloves, etc.
1. It is suggested that the Platform educate the teams on their procedures and their
culture.
P. Ted also suggests allowing more time for training, around 2 days, as well as 2 days for
responding to the press.
Q. Ted outlines more advice on slide 10.
R. All instruments taken on the aircraft must be marked with a semi-unique identifier (e.g.
“HI”) and checked in and out when taken on/off the aircraft.
S. Tim will distribute the tool control policy and gather more information about how
the rules are enforced. What are people doing with it?
T. During last night’s line ops, they made an attempt with the shaker. There appears to be
something odd going on with the control system. They also had issues with gyro drift
that caused troubles with gyro alignment. This is what they will work on next. Rain is
expected tomorrow night.
U. Temperature drift is the same as it was in Waco and this is puzzling.
XII. EXES – Matt Richter
A. Their stoplight chart is mostly green, with a few yellows in the technical area for the
detectors and the grating as well as budget and schedule for airworthiness.
B. The change of institution and PI is a big risk. Until this is settled, it is hard to say that the
instrument is “stable”. If they do not maintain the knowledge from TEXES, the impact
on science will be severe. It is essential that Matt stay on the program.
C. With the help of Mina Cappuccio and Mark McElvey, they will put together a proposal
with good schedule and budget. Final iteration with USRA will be in mid January. Mina
hopes to have a detailed project plan by February.
D. There is still some uncertainty about a final home for EXES. A few months ago, it was
sure to be UC Davis. In the meantime, Matt was informed that there would be
institutional requirements placed on UC Davis (not sure of scope or whether they would
be willing to do them). Ames has a great desire to be involved in EXES, including
housing the instrument there. It is uncertain, but Matt thinks both options are viable.
E. The next issue (major) is with the 10242 array and electronics.
1. This array was tested by Mark McKelvey’s group and it was offered to EXES on a
long-term loan and they have been planning to use it ever since. The Cornell team is
building a copy of FORCAST’s electronics for EXES. Matt does not anticipate
problems, but this is an untested item so is the source of some concern. If things
don’t go right, they can reasonably use the TEXES array and electronics.
F. Eric brings up that the original EXES array was a SIRTF science-grade array and the
present array (1024) is an engineering array for JWST. Is it possible to get a sciencegrade JWST array? Matt believes there is a possibility. Mark has 2, one of which was
tested and published in an SPIE article.
G. Another minor issue is the cross dispersion grating. The most elegant solution is to have
a custom diamond machined grating. They can also get COTS gratings and mount them
back-to-back.
10
H. The mechanical and cryogenic design and fabrication still needs to be done, as well as
tested/analyzed from an airworthiness perspective.
I. Last SITR they were waiting to hear about a 2nd proposal to JPL. This ended up being
unsuccessful. So if they get an array, it is most likely to come from Mark McKelvey @
Ames.
J. In the last four months, much work was done. Matt went to Austin and got some hands
on experience with the actual EXES instrument. He spent some time taking things apart
and putting them back together, etc. There is more work to be done before he feels
completely comfortable about the design.
K. In the next year, aside from ironing out the PI transfer, determining EXES’ home, and
getting the budget/schedule put together, they will also move everything, finish testing of
the filters and cross dispersion grating, and do some cabling.
L. They still plan to hire a postdoc – let Matt know if you know of any good candidates.
M. Goals are to test warm with the bare readout and test cold with the 10242.
N. John Lacy is not going away. He does not want to be formally connected with the
program, but will be acting as a consultant to Matt as things are transferred.
XIII. Wrap Up
A. New action items include:
1. Develop a plan for a dolly for getting things on and off the plane – USRA (Dave
Black)
2. Martin to get more details about the schedule and who is the keeper of the master
aircraft schedule.
3. Discuss EOOP budget with Randolf (Martin)
4. Check the magnetic environment numbers on the plane. Juergen Stutzki wrote a
report (Augsburg, summer ’02) – Martin.
5. Check on availability of JWST arrays for EXES – Mina, Martin, Matt.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:41pm.
11