![](media/image1.png){width="1.323611111111111in"
height="1.1055555555555556in"}

**Criteria for Flight Project**

**Critical Milestone Reviews**

**GSFC-STD-1001**

**Baseline Release**

**February 2005**

> Approved By: [O*riginal signed by *]{.underline} Date:
> [2/19/05]{.underline}

Richard M. Day

Director, Independent Technical Authority Governance

> and Systems Management Office

**Change History Log**

  -------------- --------------- --------------------------------------------
  **Revision**   **Effective     **Description of Changes**
                 Date**          

  **-**          **2/19/05**     **Baseline Release**

                                 

                                 
  -------------- --------------- --------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

# 

[1.0 PURPOSE 4](#purpose)

[2.0 MISSION CONCEPT REVIEW (MCR) 5](#mission-concept-review-mcr)

[3.0 MISSION DEFINITION REVIEW (MDR) 9](#mission-definition-review-mdr)

[4.0 SYSTEM DEFINITION REVIEW (SDR) 13](#system-definition-review-sdr)

[5.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW (PDR) 18](#preliminary-design-review-pdr)

[6.0 CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDR) 24](#critical-design-review-cdr)

[7.0 MISSION OPERATIONS REVIEW (MOR) 31](#mission-operations-review-mor)

[8.0 PRE-ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (PER) 36](#pre-environmental-review-per)

[9.0 FLIGHT OPERATIONS REVIEW (FOR) 41](#flight-operations-review-for)

[10.0 PRE-SHIP REVIEW (PSR) 46](#pre-ship-review-psr)

[11.0 DISPOSAL REVIEW (DR) 50](#disposal-review-dr)

# 

#  

# 1.0 PURPOSE

This document provides standard criteria for the flight project critical
milestone reviews that comprise the Integrated Independent Reviews
prescribed by GPR 8700.4. For each mission system review during the
project lifecycle (Figure 1), the document describes the purpose,
timing, objectives, and success criteria.

This document is intended for use by both the project team and the
Integrated Independent Review Team (IIRT). For the Project Manager, its
first use should be as a guide in preparing the baseline version of the
project's Integrated Independent Review Plan. Both the Project Manager
and the Chair(s) of the IIRT should utilize the document as they
finalize the specific objectives, agenda, and success criteria in
preparation for each review.

It is expected that for each mission system review, the specific
objectives and success criteria will closely adhere to the guidance
herein, while accommodating discrete project-specific considerations.
For reviews of items below the mission system (e.g.: spacecraft or
science instruments) the guidance herein should be adapted
appropriately.

#  2.0 MISSION CONCEPT REVIEW (MCR)

**At the MCR, the project demonstrates to the Integrated Independent
Review Team (IIRT) that the proposed mission is feasible and that the
proposed mission\'s objectives and the concept (or concepts) for meeting
those objectives are viable. In addition, the project articulates a
preliminary plan for project life-cycle activities which illustrates
reasonable execution of the mission within estimated programmatic
resources in a way that accommodates foreseen constraints.**

**2.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the MCR is to affirm the need for and feasibility of the
mission, to confirm that preliminary planning for project execution is
sound, and to demonstrate project readiness to proceed with mission
definition. To that end, the project demonstrates an understanding of
mission objectives and overarching system requirements. It conveys one
or more conceptual approaches to fulfilling those requirements,
including an approach for mission operations and data processing. It
illustrates a thorough, albeit preliminary, plan for successful
execution of the entire project lifecycle that is tractable and
realistic in its resource estimates.

**2. 2 Timing**

The MCR is normally held when mission feasibility studies are complete,
at the end of pre-formulation activities. In advance of the review, the
project should highlight and discuss with the review chairperson(s) any
areas (e.g.: problematic mission requirements, critical technology
dependencies, critical trade studies, or anticipated resource
constraints) that may warrant consideration in the composition of the
review team. Depending upon the intended acquisition approach for the
mission, Goddard management may decide that an MCR will not be conducted
or that it will be replaced by a management review. Such determination
shall be made in conjunction with the planning and approval of the
project's Integrated Independent Review Plan.

**2. 3 Objectives**

The objectives of the MCR are to confirm that: (a) science objectives
are clearly understood and comprehensively defined, (b) preliminary
mission requirements are traceable to science objectives, (c) the
operations concept clearly supports achievement of science objectives,

\(d\) the conceptual system design meets mission requirements and the
various system elements are compatible, (e) technology dependencies are
understood and alternative strategies for achievement of requirements
are understood, and (f) preliminary mission planning demonstrates
technical and programmatic feasibility of mission execution within
estimated programmatic resources in a way that accommodates foreseen
constraints.

The MCR should contain a complete description of the conceptual mission
design. It should present the design by means of block diagrams
depicting system interfaces with external supporting systems as well as
depicting interfaces between independent system elements. Preliminary
modeling and analysis results should be presented in order to illustrate
feasibility of achieving science objectives.

Programmatic planning and resource estimates shall be discussed in
sufficient detail to permit assessment of relevant review objectives.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Mission Requirements

b.  Mission Operations

c.  Conceptual Design

d.  Safety and Risk Management

e.  Implementation Planning

f.  Programmatics

g.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 

## 2. 4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

2.4.1 Mission Requirements:

a.  Mission objectives are defined completely and are realistically
    achievable within the context of the mission.

b.  Mission and system level requirements are clearly defined,
    unambiguous, and traceable to science objectives.

c.  Mission level assumptions and constraints are defined and
    quantified.

d.  Preliminary interface requirements with external systems are
    defined.

e.  An approach for flow down and control of requirements within the
    system is defined.

f.  A plan for usage of units of measurement is defined in accord with
    agency requirements.

g.  Preliminary requirements are identified for each independent system
    element (e.g.: spacecraft, science instruments, launch vehicle,
    ground operation system, ground support equipment) and are traceable
    to and compatible with preliminary system requirements.

h.  Reasonable interface requirements have been identified between
    independent system elements.

i.  Results of mission level requirements trades completed to date are
    documented and include rationale for selected alternatives. On-going
    or needed future trade studies are identified with potential impacts
    understood and able to be accommodated. Selection criteria are
    defined for evaluating the results of such studies.

2.4.2 Mission Operations:

a.  A mission operations concept has been defined that fulfills science
    objectives.

b.  Launch and early orbit considerations have been conceptually
    identified.

c.  Data flow scenarios exist that illustrate a data acquisition,
    processing, and analysis sequence that will satisfy science
    objectives.

2.4.3 Conceptual Design:

a.  A conceptual system configuration is defined with sufficient
    understanding to indicate that a design approach exists that is
    tractable and responsive to requirements.

b.  Preliminary modeling and analysis results (e.g.: performance,
    reliability, etc.) are available and have been considered in the
    conceptual system configuration.

c.  Iteration of the design since initial concept, whether trade study
    induced or otherwise, is articulated with rationale for all changes.

d.  Ongoing or future design related trade studies are identified and
    potential impact of results is understood. Selection rationale for
    evaluating trade results is defined.

e.  Technology dependencies are defined and understood. Timely
    availability is reasonable. Alternative approaches for critical
    dependencies have been determined.

f.  Utilization of major heritage elements has been identified.
    Adaptation for the current application appears tractable.

g.  Adequate design margins for critical resources (mass, power, data
    rate, etc.) are estimated.

h.  A baseline plan for compliance with the Goddard Rules
    (GSFC-STD-1000) has been defined. Preliminary discussion regarding
    potential non-compliances has been completed. Any required waivers /
    deviations have been initiated.

2.4.4 Safety and Risk Management:

a.  A baseline risk management approach is defined.

b.  Major mission risks are defined with impact and probability of
    occurrence identified. Acceptable mitigation plans and trigger
    events are defined.

c.  Design philosophy relative to single point failures is clearly
    documented and approved.

d.  Requirements for safety are defined.

e.  Initial hazard identification and control methods have been
    determined.

2.4.5 Implementation Planning:

a.  Program flow has been preliminarily defined to allow estimates for
    required hardware quantities.

b.  A conceptual system level verification approach has been defined.

c.  Preliminary approaches to controlling technical activities (e.g.:
    systems engineering, design, software development, verification)
    have been identified.

d.  Preliminary Mission Assurance requirements have been identified for
    EEE parts and reliability analyses.

e.  Appropriate environmental impact assessments and control activities
    have been initiated.

2.4.6 Programmatics:

a.  Roles, responsibilities, and interfaces between all participating
    institutions are preliminarily defined.

b.  A project organization chart clearly delineates functional
    responsibilities and relationships for all key members of the
    project team.

c.  Organization and staffing plans identify preliminary staffing
    estimates throughout the project lifecycle.

d.  Appropriate processes and metrics have been identified for tracking
    and controlling cost, schedule, and technical activities throughout
    the life-cycle.

e.  Preliminary schedules identify realistic events and span times
    (including slack) and are compatible with a launch date that meets
    mission needs.

f.  Cost to complete shows appropriate spending profiles and financial
    reserves, and is compatible with allocations.

2.4.7 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  A sufficiently comprehensive Integrated Independent Review Plan has
    been defined and approved in accordance with GPR requirements.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been planned in
    compliance with GPR requirements.

c.  Recommendations from any completed project or external review
    activity that is applicable to the subject matter of the MCR have
    been adequately implemented.

**2.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the MCR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will
assess the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the
criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward
and likely to succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other
relevant factors in making a judgment as to whether the MCR has
accomplished its objectives and has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the RFAs generated at the review. In some cases a delta MCR may be
required for the project to successfully complete this milestone.

Successful completion of the MCR constitutes readiness for consideration
of approval to proceed with mission formulation.

# 3.0 MISSION DEFINITION REVIEW (MDR)

**At the MDR, the project conveys to the Integrated Independent Review
Team (IIRT) that the baseline mission requirements are clearly
understood, that the requirements for each independent system element
have been determined, and that the currently envisioned system design
will fully satisfy those requirements in order to justify that it is
ready to proceed to complete system definition and to flow down
requirements to lower levels of the system. In addition, the project
shall sufficiently articulate its planning for remaining project
activities in order to justify that there are reasonable expectations
that the project will accommodate any imposed constraints and meet its
success criteria within the allocated resources.**

**3.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the MDR is to demonstrate project readiness to complete
system definition and to fully flow down requirements to lower levels of
the system. To that end, the project demonstrates that the baseline
mission requirements are clearly understood, that the distribution of
those requirements to each independent system element is complete and
traceable to the mission level, and that the currently envisioned system
design will fully satisfy those requirements. It shows that the systems
design is producible. It identifies a complete scenario for mission
operations as well as data processing and analysis that will satisfy
mission objectives.

**3.2 Timing**

The MDR is normally held very early in the definition phase upon
completion of a feasible mission definition and while system concept
changes can be accommodated with minimal impact. When scheduling the
review, the project should highlight and discuss with the review
chairperson(s) any significant risk areas (e.g.: problematic mission
requirements, critical technology dependencies, outstanding trade
studies, or significant resource constraints) that may warrant
consideration in the timing of the review or the composition of the
review team. For efficiency, the Project Manager and the IIRT Chair may
consider combining the MDR with the SDR if the lifecycle is such that
both reviews would otherwise occur in relatively short succession. In
that event, guidelines for the SDR should also be consulted and a review
should be planned that simultaneously fulfills both sets of objectives.

**3.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the MDR are to confirm that: (a) science objectives
are fully understood and, if feasible, prioritized so as to define
acceptable descope options, (b) the conceptual system design is tailored
to efficiently and effectively meet science objectives, (c) system level
requirements are traceable to science objectives and are clearly and
logically allocated amongst the independent system elements, (d) the
operations concept clearly supports achievement of science objectives,
(e) technology dependencies are fully defined with risks and viable
mitigation plans identified, and (f) successful execution of the project
can be reasonably expected within imposed constraints and available cost
and schedule resources.

The MDR should contain a complete and comprehensive description of the
mission and system design. It should present the design by means of
block diagrams, depicting system interfaces with external supporting
systems as well as depicting internal interfaces between independent
system elements. Completed modeling and analysis results should be
presented in order to illustrate that science objectives will be
achieved.

Programmatic considerations shall be discussed in sufficient detail to
permit assessment of relevant review objectives.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Mission Requirements

b.  Mission Operations

c.  Design Description

d.  Risk Management

e.  Safety

f.  Implementation Planning

g.  Programmatics

h.  Project and Independent Review Activity

    **3.4 Criteria for Successful Completion**

3.4.1 Mission Requirements:

a.  Science objectives are clear, complete, and describe objectives in
    terms of meaningful measurable parameters.

b.  Science objectives are prioritized and descope opportunities are
    defined that meet minimum objectives.

c.  System level requirements are clearly and fully traceable to science
    objectives.

d.  System level assumptions and constraints are defined and quantified.

e.  Interface requirements with external systems are clearly defined and
    fully understood.

f.  Approach for flowdown and control of requirements within the system
    is fully defined and understood.

g.  Approach to usage, control, and verification of units of measurement
    is defined and documented.

h.  Attainable requirements are flowed down to each independent system
    element (e.g.: spacecraft, science instruments, launch vehicle,
    ground operation system, ground support equipment) or below and are
    traceable to and compatible with system requirements.

i.  Attainable interface requirements have been identified between each
    independent system element.

j.  Results of requirements trades are documented and include rationale
    for selected alternatives. Open trade studies are identified and
    potential impacts are understood.

3.4.2 Mission Operations:

a.  A mission operations scenario has been defined that fulfills science
    objectives.

b.  Launch and early orbit scenarios have been conceptually defined.

c.  Data flow scenarios exist that depict the data acquisition,
    processing, and analysis activity.

3.4.3 Design Description:

a.  Conceptual system configuration is defined with sufficient depth to
    indicate a feasible design approach has been selected and
    requirements will be met.

b.  Appropriate modeling and analysis results (e.g.: performance,
    reliability, etc.) are available and have been considered in the
    system design.

c.  Iteration of design since initial concept, whether trade study
    induced or otherwise, is articulated with rationale for all changes.

d.  Ongoing or future trade studies are identified and potential impact
    of results on design is understood. Selection rationale for trade
    results is defined.

e.  Technology dependencies are defined and understood. Timely
    availability is reasonable. Workarounds and associated trigger
    points are defined.

f.  Potential problems are understood and attendant risks have been
    adequately mitigated.

g.  Utilization of major heritage elements have been determined,
    rationale for such clearly defined, and considerations constraining
    use of such identified.

h.  Adequate design margins for critical resources (mass, power, data
    rate, etc.) are estimated.

i.  Preliminary functional flow diagrams exist. Mission critical
    failures have been identified. Redundancies and/or workarounds have
    been defined or acceptability approved.

j.  Current status of compliance with the Goddard Rules (GSFC-STD-1000)
    reflects adequate progress of activities to date and satisfactory
    plans for future activities. Any required waivers / deviations have
    been approved.

3.4.4 Risk Management:

a.  Baseline risk management approach is defined.

b.  Major mission risks are defined with impact and probability of
    occurrence. Acceptable mitigation plans and trigger events are
    defined.

c.  Design philosophy relative to single point failures is clearly
    documented and approved.

3.4.5 Safety:

a.  Requirements for safety are defined.

b.  Initial hazard identification and control methods have been
    determined.

3.4.6 Implementation Planning:

a.  Program flow has been sufficiently well defined to determine
    required quantities of hardware and software items.

b.  A preliminary system level verification approach has been defined.

c.  Approach to controlling technical activities (systems engineering,
    software development, verification, configuration control, etc.)
    have been defined.

d.  Preliminary Mission Assurance requirements have been defined (EEE
    parts and materials usage, reliability analyses, quality control,
    problem reporting, etc.).

e.  Appropriate environmental impact assessments and control activities
    have been initiated.

3.4.7 Programmatics:

a.  Roles, responsibilities, and interfaces between all participating
    institutions are clearly defined. Project organization chart clearly
    delineates functional responsibilities and relationships.

b.  Organization and staffing plans delineate clear responsibilities and
    adequate assignment of current and future staff.

c.  Appropriate processes and metrics are in place to track and control
    cost, schedule, and technical activities throughout the remaining
    life-cycle.

d.  Appropriately detailed schedules show realistic event times as well
    as appropriate funded slack and are compatible with approved launch
    dates.

e.  Cost to complete shows adequate spending profiles and financial
    reserves, and is compatible with allocations.

3.4.8 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  Timely response to RFAs from previous IIRT reviews, if any, has
    occurred.

b.  Resultant actions have been implemented effectively. Schedule for
    completion of any outstanding RFAs is defined.

c.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been planned and
    documented in compliance with GPR requirements.

d.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity that
    is applicable to the subject matter of the MDR have been adequately
    implemented.

**3.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the MDR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will
assess the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the
criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward
and likely to succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other
relevant factors in making a judgment as to whether the MCR has
accomplished its objectives and has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the RFAs generated at the review. In some cases a delta MDR may be
required for the project to successfully pass this milestone.

Successful completion of the MDR constitutes readiness to proceed to
complete system definition and to flow down requirements to lower levels
of the system.

# 4.0 SYSTEM DEFINITION REVIEW (SDR)

**At the SDR, the project conveys to the Integrated Independent Review
Team (IIRT) that, for the current mission system design, requirements
have been formally and fully allocated to all independent flight and
ground system elements and, in turn, to their respective subsystems and
that all system requirements will be satisfied. In so doing, the project
justifies readiness to proceed with preliminary design. In addition, the
project shall sufficiently articulate its planning for remaining project
activities in order to justify that there are reasonable expectations
that the project will accommodate any imposed constraints and meet its
success criteria within the allocated resources.**

**4.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the SDR is to demonstrate project readiness to begin
preliminary design. To that end, the project demonstrates that the
baseline mission requirements are clearly understood, that system
definition is complete, that the allocation of requirements to each
independent system element and their respective subsystems is complete
and verifiable, and that those lower level requirements are traceable to
the mission level.

**4.2 Timing**

The SDR is generally held at the end of system definition upon
completion of a feasible design that will satisfy all system
requirements. A meaningful SDR relies upon the current validity of those
things covered during the MDR. To the degree that such is not wholly the
case, then the SDR content must be revised so as to establish validity
that MDR objectives are also satisfied. When such is necessary, separate
guidelines applicable to the MDR shall be consulted for advice on
restructuring the content of the SDR to accomplish these multiple sets
of objectives. When, because of a shortened project lifecycle, the MDR
and the SDR are combined, all objectives of each must be simultaneously
fulfilled. When scheduling the review, the project should highlight and
discuss with the review chairperson(s) any significant areas that may
warrant consideration in the timing of the review or composition of the
review team.

**4.3 Objectives**

When all MDR objectives have been satisfied (see discussion in above
paragraph when such is not the case), the objectives of the SDR are to
confirm that: (a) definition of a producible system is complete and
fully satisfies all mission objectives, (b) system requirements have
been logically and fully allocated to each independent system element
and in turn to their respective subsystem level or below, (c) all
allocated requirements are verifiable and traceable to their
corresponding system level requirement, (d) preliminary verification
approaches and acceptance criteria are defined, and (e) the requisite
level of detail and resources are available to support the acquisition
and development plan within existing constraints.

After establishing that current mission planning continues to be
compatible with the requirements of the MDR, the SDR should contain a
complete and comprehensive description of the system design in order to
establish the baseline for which the requirements are defined. It should
present the design by means of block diagrams, depicting system
interfaces with external supporting systems, internal interfaces between
independent system elements, and interfaces within each independent
system element to the subsystem level and below. Completed modeling and
analysis results that demonstrate the ability of the design to fulfill
system requirements should be presented.

The requirements allocation and control process should be presented
followed by a formal delineation of all allocated requirements in a way
that illustrates their completeness, traceability, and verifiability. An
understanding of attendant risk, safety, and assurance considerations
shall accompany a discussion of implementation. Programmatic
considerations shall be discussed in sufficient detail to permit
assessment of relevant review objectives.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Design Description

b.  Requirements Related Processes

c.  Requirements Definition

d.  Requirements Verification

e.  Risk Management

f.  Safety

g.  Assurance

h.  Implementation Planning

i.  Programmatics

j.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 

## 4.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

4.4.1 Design Description:

a.  System design changes since MDR are documented and rationale for
    continued compliance with MDR criteria is provided. Results of
    requirements trades are documented and include rationale for
    selected alternatives. On-going or future trade studies are
    identified and potential impact of results on design is understood.
    Selection rationale for trade results is defined.

b.  Block diagrams illustrate functional flow and clearly define
    interfaces with external systems, interfaces between each
    independent system element ( spacecraft, science instruments, launch
    vehicle, ground system, etc.), and interfaces within each
    independent element down to the subsystem level or below.

c.  Results of appropriate system analyses (e.g.: performance, error
    budgets, reliability) illustrate adequacy of system design to
    accomplish mission objectives within constraints and with acceptable
    risk.

d.  Mission critical failures have been identified. Redundancies and/or
    workarounds have been defined or single-string design approach has
    been approved.

e.  Technology development related items continue on track and
    mitigation plans remain viable.

f.  Utilization of heritage elements has been determined. Preliminary
    assessment of activity needed to verify usage on the current mission
    has been completed.

g.  Margins for all critical resources (mass, power, data rate, etc.)
    meet applicable criteria.

h.  Current status of compliance with the Goddard Rules (GSFC-STD-1000)
    reflects adequate progress of activities to date and satisfactory
    plans for future activities. Any required waivers / deviations have
    been approved.

i.  Usage and control of units of measurement is fully defined and
    approved.

j.  Approach to verification of compatibility across all interfaces is
    defined.

4.4.2 Requirements Related Processes:

a.  Processes for the allocation and control of requirements are
    documented and approved.

b.  The approach for tracking and controlling allocation and reserves of
    key resources (such as mass, power, memory, etc.) is documented and
    approved.

c.  The approach to controlling and integrating all technical activities
    is defined and documented.

d.  Plans for design, production, and verification activities are
    defined and documented.

4.4.3 Requirements Definition:

a.  Interface requirements with external systems are defined.

b.  Interface requirements between independent system elements are
    defined.

c.  Interface requirements between subsystems and components of each
    independent system element are defined.

d.  Functional requirements for subsystems and components of each
    independent system element are defined so as to fully achieve system
    requirements. Such requirements are verifiable and are traceable to
    their respective system and mission requirements.

e.  Allocation of key resources (mass, power, etc.) to elements of
    flight subsystems is reasonable.

f.  Mission operations, data acquisition, data processing, and data
    analysis requirements are fully defined.

4.4.4 Requirements Verification:

a.  Preliminary approaches for the verification of all requirements have
    been defined.

b.  Preliminary acceptance criteria have been defined at the deliverable
    end-item

level.

4.4.5 Risk Management:

a.  A risk management process that meets GPR requirements is defined and
    utilized.

b.  All significant risks, problems, and open items are identified and
    tracked (including programmatic, development and flight performance
    related items). Risk mitigation plans are appropriate. Credible
    triggers for exercising alternatives are defined.

c.  Reliability considerations have been factored into design decisions.

d.  Single point failures are compatible with approved project
    philosophy.

e.  Lessons learned have been appropriately researched and adapted.

4.4.6 Safety:

a.  A preliminary safety plan identifies all requirements as well as any
    planned tailoring approaches or intended non-compliances.

b.  Preliminary hazards, controls, and verification methods are
    identified and documented.

c.  Any open safety issues are identified with plans for resolution.

d.  Preliminary plans and schedules for all required safety submittals
    are defined.

4.4.7 Assurance Activities:

> Mission Assurance requirements have been defined (EEE parts and
> materials usage, reliability analyses, quality control, problem
> reporting etc.) and preliminary plans are completed.

4.4.8 Implementation Planning:

a.  Program flow has been defined and required quantities of hardware
    and software items are defined..

b.  A preliminary system level verification plan has been defined.

c.  Plans for controlling technical activities (systems engineering,
    software development, verification, configuration control, etc.)
    have been approved.

d.  Environmental impact assessments and control activities are on
    track.

4.4.9 Programmatics:

a.  Roles, responsibilities, and interfaces between all participating
    institutions are clearly defined.

b.  Project organization chart clearly delineates functional
    responsibilities and relationships.

c.  Organization and staffing plans delineate clear responsibilities and
    adequate assignment of current and future staff.

d.  Appropriate processes and metrics are in place to track and control
    cost, schedule, and technical activities throughout the remaining
    life-cycle.

e.  Appropriately detailed schedules show realistic event times as well
    as appropriate funded slack and are compatible with approved launch
    dates.

f.  Cost to complete shows adequate spending profiles and financial
    reserves, and is compatible with allocations.

4.4.10 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  Timely response to RFAs from previous IIRT reviews has occurred.
    Resultant actions have been implemented effectively. Schedule for
    completion of any outstanding RFAs is defined.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been conducted
    and documented in compliance with GPR requirements. Resultant
    actions have been effectively dispositioned and executed.
    Appropriate additional reviews are planned.

c.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity that
    is applicable to the subject matter of the SDR have been adequately
    implemented.

**4.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the SDR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will
assess the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the
criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward
and likely to succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other
relevant factors in making a judgment as to whether the MCR has
accomplished its objectives and has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the RFAs generated at the review. In some cases a delta SDR may be
required for the project to successfully pass this milestone.

Successful completion of the SDR constitutes readiness to proceed with
preliminary design.

# 5.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW (PDR)

**At the PDR, the project discloses the complete system design to the
Integrated Independent Review Team (IIRT) and justifies that it has
completed a credible and acceptable mission formulation, is prepared to
proceed with the detailed design, and is on track to complete the flight
and ground system development and mission operations in order to meet
mission performance requirements within the identified cost and schedule
constraints.**

**5.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the PDR is to demonstrate project readiness to proceed
with the detailed design and to complete the flight and ground system
development and mission operations in order to meet mission performance
requirements within the identified cost and schedule constraints. To
that end, the project demonstrates that the preliminary design meets all
system requirements with acceptable risk. It shows that the correct
design option has been selected, resource allocations have been made,
interfaces have been identified, and verification methods have been
identified. Supportive design analyses confirm compliance with
requirements.

**5.2 Timing**

The PDR is the first major review of the overall system design and is
normally held prior to the preparation of detailed design drawings and
the initiation of any full-scale flight hardware/software development. A
PDR is held when the design is advanced sufficiently to begin some
breadboard testing and /or the fabrication of design models. When
scheduling the review, the project should highlight and discuss with the
review chairperson(s) any significant development areas (significant due
to the amount, the criticality, the technical difficulty/complexity,
etc.) that may warrant attention regarding timing of the review or
composition of the review team.

**5.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the PDR are to: (a) ensure that all system
requirements have been allocated, the requirements are complete, and the
flow-down is adequate to verify system performance; (b) show that the
proposed design is expected to meet the functional and performance
requirements; (c) show sufficient maturity in the proposed design
approach to proceed to final design; (d) show that the design is
verifiable and that the risks have been identified and characterized,
and where appropriate, mitigation plans have been defined; (e) show that
the management processes used by the mission team are sufficient to
develop and operate the mission; (f) show that the cost estimates and
schedules indicate that the mission will be ready to launch and operate
on time and within budget and that the control processes are adequate to
ensure remaining within allocated resources.

The PDR should contain a complete and comprehensive presentation of the
entire design. It should present the design and interfaces by means of
block diagrams, power flow diagrams, signal flow diagrams, interface
circuits, software logic flow and timing diagrams. Appropriate modeling
results should be presented. Traceability for all items specified for
previous IIRT reviews, updated to the present stage of the development
process, shall be presented.

Programmatic considerations shall be discussed in sufficient detail to
permit assessment of relevant review objectives.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Design Description (including Requirements, Evolution and Heritage)

b.  Total System Performance (budgets/projections/margins for combined
    optical, thermal, mechanical, control, etc.)

c.  Design Analyses

d.  Development Test Activities

e.  Risk Management

f.  Safety

g.  Assurance Activities

h.  Implementation Plans

i.  Qualification/Environmental Test Plans and Test Flow

j.  Interface Control Documents

k.  Logistics

l.  Launch Vehicle Interfaces

m.  Ground Operations, Mission Operations, and End-of-Life

n.  Programmatics

o.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 

## 5.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

5.4.1 Design Description (including Requirements, Evolution and
Heritage):

a.  A complete and comprehensive definition of the entire design exists
    to the component level.

b.  Current status of compliance with the Goddard Rules (GSFC-STD-1000)
    reflects adequate progress of activities to date and satisfactory
    plans for future activities. Any required waivers / deviations have
    been approved.

c.  Results of trade studies and rationale for selected alternatives are
    defined.

d.  Remaining trade studies are identified and potential impacts are
    understood.

e.  Requirements flowdown and traceability to the appropriate subsystem
    of each system element, and, to the extent practical, to the
    component, has been completed. A preliminary verification matrix has
    been defined that includes the selected verification method for each
    requirement , including the compatibility of units of measurement,
    where applicable.

f.  Requirements and design changes since MDR and SDR and their
    rationale are documented.

g.  Appropriate descopes have been identified.

    -   Plans and trigger points have been identified.

    -   Impact to science objectives and deliverables has been defined.

    -   Potential impacts to mass, power, software and other resources
        have been quantified.

    -   Budget and schedule impacts have been estimated.

h.  Long lead items and their acquisition plans have been identified.
    Any fabrication needed prior to CDR has been identified.

i.  Proof of heritage applicability (similarity) has been assessed.
    Required analyses and/or tests of heritage designs to address all
    design modifications, changes in the expected environment and
    operational differences has been identified.

j.  EEE Parts Considerations:

-   Parts Stress Analysis (PSA) requirements have been defined.

-   Radiation tolerance requirements have been defined.

-   Selection, de-rating, screening and qualification test criteria are
    defined.

-   Preliminary parts lists are complete.

-   Long lead acquisitions are planned. Risk mitigations are defined.

k.  Software Considerations:

    -   Preliminary requirements are identified, including language,
        structure, logic flow, CPU throughput and memory loading,
        re-use, safety, and security.

    -   Nominal operating scenarios are identified, along with fault
        detection, isolation, and recovery strategies.

    -   Design and development plans are defined including lines of code
        estimates, number of builds, tools, and procedures.

    -   Verification strategies are defined including test environments.

    -   Preliminary system performance estimates exist.

    -   IV&V plans are identified.

5.4.2 Total System Performance (budgets/projections/margins for combined
optical, thermal, mechanical, control, etc.):

a.  Budgets and margins for system performance (pointing, throughput,
    etc.) are defined.

b.  Preliminary system performance estimates are complete.

c.  Estimates of critical resource margins (i.e., mass, power, delta V,
    CPU throughput and memory, etc.) have been delineated based on
    design maturity.

-   Sufficient margin exists based on applicable standards. Risk
    mitigation strategies are defined for margins below guidelines.

d.  Preliminary analyses are completed for:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Mechanical loads, stress, fracture control, and torque margins,

    c.  Thermal environment, including predicted performance and
        margins,

    d.  Radiation protection requirements and design margins,

b.  Expected lifetime and margins for limited life items.

5.4.3 Design Analyses:

a.  Preliminary analyses critical to proof of design are complete.

b.  Analyses required to enable detailed design should be complete.

c.  Rationale and risk assessment exists for outstanding analyses that
    may, at completion, impact the design baseline, i.e. mass, power,
    volume, interfaces.

d.  Status and schedule of final analyses are defined.

5.4.4 Development Test Activities:

a.  Breadboard and engineering model development activities have been
    defined.

b.  Test objectives and criteria have been identified.

c.  Completed breadboard and engineering model test results have been
    iterated into the design.

d.  Required life tests have been identified and are planned for
    completion by CDR.

5.4.5 Risk Management:

a.  A risk management process that meets GPR requirements is defined and
    utilized.

b.  All significant risks, problems, and open items are identified and
    tracked (including programmatic, development and flight performance
    related items). Risk mitigation plans are appropriate and credible.

c.  Lessons learned have been appropriately researched and adapted.

d.  Initial reliability analyses are completed and results have been
    factored into the design.

> Analyses include:

-   Fault Tree Analysis (FTA),

-   Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), as appropriate,

-   Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA),

-   Single Point Failure (SPF) assessment and retention rationale

-   Reliability driver (weak design links) assessment, and

-   Worst Case Analysis (WCA).

5.4.6 Safety:

a.  An approved safety plan identifies all requirements as well as any
    planned tailoring approaches or intended non-compliances.

b.  Preliminary hazards, controls, and verification methods are
    identified and documented.

c.  Any open safety issues are identified with plans for resolution.

d.  Plans and schedules for all required safety submittals are defined
    and documented.

5.4.7 Assurance Activities:

a.  Quality Assurance plans are complete including the problem reporting
    system.

b.  Preliminary production planning and process controls (including
    strategy for control/verification of units of measurement) have been
    identified. Applicable workmanship standards have been defined.

c.  Special materials considerations have been identified.

5.4.8 Implementation Plans:

a.  Equipment and facilities for the development and test of hardware
    and software have been identified.

b.  Preliminary planning for Systems Integration and Test activities,
    including science validation and calibration, as well as operations
    compatibility testing, has been defined. Facilities are available
    and, if needed, utilization agreements are in work.

c.  Risks associated with I&T have been characterized and preliminary
    mitigations have been defined.

d.  Contamination requirements and preliminary control plans are
    defined.

5.4.9 Interface Control Documents:

a.  Preliminary ICDs, with external systems as well as between system
    elements, are complete.

b.  "TBD"s are clearly identified. Plans and schedules exist for their
    definition.

5.4.10 Qualification/Environmental Test Plans and Test Flow:

a.  Approach to Qualification/Proto-flight/Acceptance testing has been
    defined.

b.  Environmental verification flow is traceable from component to
    system level.

c.  Interleaving of environmental and functional test flow has been
    defined.

d.  Preliminary identification of all mechanical and electrical GSE has
    been completed.

e.  Special test requirements have been defined.

f.  Test facilities have been defined. Facilities are available and, if
    needed, utilization agreements are in work.

5.4.11 Logistics:

a.  Transportation methods are identified including environmental
    control and monitoring considerations.

b.  Preliminary identification of all GSE has been completed.

c.  Transportation container requirements have been identified.

5.4.12 Launch Vehicle Interfaces:

a.  Preliminary ICD is complete. "TBD"s are clearly identified. Plans
    and schedules exist for their definition.

b.  Payload-driven first flight/mission unique items have been
    identified and mission implications are understood.

c.  Potential launch vehicle related risk items are identified.

d.  Preliminary vehicle Orbital Debris Assessment has been completed.

e.  Preliminary integrated payload/launch vehicle activity flow has been
    defined.

f.  Preliminary schedule of all vehicle/payload inter-related activities
    has been defined.

g.  Preliminary coupled loads analysis has been initiated.

5.4.13 Ground Operations, Mission Operations, End-of-Life:

a.  Science and mission operations concepts are defined.

b.  Launch site and mission operations unique ground systems have been
    defined.

c.  Preliminary plans are defined for launch site activities, launch &
    early orbit operations.

d.  Preliminary planning for involvement and training of launch site and
    of mission operations teams are defined.

e.  Preliminary Orbital Debris Assessment is complete. Potential trades
    have been determined. End-of-life requirements and design
    accommodations are understood.

5.4.14 Programmatics:

a.  Organization and staffing plans delineate clear responsibilities and
    adequate assignment of current and future staff.

b.  Appropriate processes and metrics are in place to track and control
    cost, schedule, and technical activities throughout the remaining
    life-cycle.

c.  Appropriately detailed schedules show realistic event times as well
    as appropriate funded slack and are compatible with approved launch
    dates.

d.  Cost to complete shows adequate spending profiles and financial
    reserves, and is compatible with allocations.

5.4.15 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  Timely response to RFAs from previous IIRT reviews has occurred.
    Resultant actions have been implemented effectively. Schedule for
    completion of any outstanding RFAs is defined.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been conducted
    and documented in compliance with GPR requirements. Resultant
    actions have been effectively dispositioned and executed.
    Appropriate additional reviews are planned.

c.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity that
    is applicable to the subject matter of the PDR have been adequately
    implemented.

**5.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the PDR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will
assess the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the
criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward
and likely to succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other
relevant factors in making a judgment as to whether the MCR has
accomplished its objectives and has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the RFAs generated at the review. In some cases a delta PDR may be
required for the project to successfully pass this milestone.

Successful completion of the PDR constitutes readiness for detailed
design to proceed.

# 6.0 CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDR)

**At the CDR, the project discloses the complete system design to the
Integrated Independent Review Team (IIRT) and justifies that the
maturity of the design and development effort is appropriate to support
proceeding with full scale fabrication activities, and is on track to
complete the flight and ground system development and mission operations
in order to meet mission performance requirements within the identified
cost and schedule constraints.**

**6.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the CDR is to demonstrate that the maturity of the design
and development effort is appropriate to support proceeding with full
scale fabrication activities and that the project is on track to
complete the flight and ground system development and mission operations
in order to meet mission performance requirements within the identified
cost and schedule constraints. To that end, the project demonstrates
that the final detailed design, as represented by completed drawings and
analyses, supported by results of breadboard and engineering model
evaluation, will meet the final performance and interface specifications
and the required design objectives.

**6.2 Timing**

The CDR is held near the completion of the final design stage, including
the completion of engineering model evaluations, as applicable, and of
breadboard development and test. Although substantial completion of
drawings is expected, the review should be held prior to any design
freeze and before any significant fabrication activity begins. When
scheduling the review, the project should highlight and discuss with the
review chairperson(s) any significant development areas (significant due
to the amount, the criticality, the technical difficulty/complexity,
etc.) which may not be sufficiently mature and may warrant consideration
regarding either timing of the review or composition of the review team.
Start of some fabrication, typically long lead items, off-the-shelf
hardware or common buy items, before CDR is common and generally
acceptable, however the project should consult with the review chairman
to obtain concurrence with respect to any significant flight hardware
fabrication that will take place before CDR.

**6.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the CDR are to demonstrate that: (a) all elements of
the design are compliant with functional and performance requirements,
(b) the verification approach is viable and will confirm compliance with
all requirements, (c) risks have been appropriately identified and
mitigated or are on track for timely mitigation, (d) the design is
sufficiently mature to proceed with full scale fabrication, (e) the
management processes used by the project team are sufficient to develop
and operate the mission, and (f) the schedules and cost estimates
indicate that the mission will be ready to launch and operate on time
and within budget and that the control processes are adequate to ensure
remaining within allocated resources.

The CDR should represent a complete and comprehensive presentation of
the entire final design. It should present the final design and
interfaces by means of completed drawings, block diagrams, power flow
diagrams, signal flow diagrams, interface circuits, software logic flow
and timing diagrams, modeling results, and breadboard and engineering
model test results. Traceability for all items specified for previous
IIRT reviews, updated to the present stage of the development process,
shall be presented.

Programmatic considerations shall be discussed in sufficient detail to
permit assessment of relevant review objectives.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Design Description (including Requirements, Evolution and Heritage)

b.  Total System Performance (budgets/projections/margins for combined
    optical, thermal, mechanical, control, etc.)

c.  Design Analyses

d.  Development Test Activities

e.  Risk Management

f.  Safety

g.  Assurance Activities

h.  Implementation Plans

i.  Qualification/Environmental Test Plans and Test Flow

j.  Interface Control Documents

k.  Logistics

l.  Launch Vehicle Interfaces

m.  Ground Operations, Mission Operations, and End-of-Life

n.  Programmatics

o.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 6.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

6.4.1 Design Description (including Requirements, Evolution and
Heritage):

a.  A complete and comprehensive definition of the entire design exists
    to the piece-part level.

b.  Current status of compliance with the Goddard Rules (GSFC-STD-1000)
    reflects adequate progress of activities to date and satisfactory
    plans for future activities. Any required waivers / deviations have
    been approved.

c.  Trade studies and rationale for selected alternatives are complete.
    Impacts of trade decision have been fully integrated into systems
    requirements, design, verification, operations, etc.

d.  Requirements flowdown and traceability has been completed. A
    verification matrix exists that will incorporate reference to
    documented results for each requirement, including the compatibility
    of units of measurement where applicable.

e.  Requirements and design changes since PDR and attendant rationale
    are documented.

f.  Potential de-scopes have been identified.

    -   Plans and trigger points have been identified.

    -   Impact to science objectives and deliverables has been defined.

    -   Impacts to mass, power, software and other resources have been
        quantified.

    -   Budget and schedule impacts have been determined.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
g.  Verification of heritage applicability (similarity) has been
    completed. Results of analyses and tests of heritage designs to
    address all design modifications, changes in the expected
    environment and operational differences have been documented.
    Deficiencies have been corrected.

h.  A high percentage of drawings (\> 80 %) are completed:

-   Number and title of all drawings has been identified,

    -   Status and schedule of drawing completion (e.g.:
        draft/preliminary/under review/final)

> have been defined.

-   Rationale for outstanding drawings is defined and impact understood.

i.  EEE Parts Considerations:

-   Radiation tolerance requirements have been defined.

-   Selection, de-rating criteria, screening and qualification test
    criteria are defined.

-   Parts lists are complete. Waivers to requirements are approved.

-   Parts stress analysis is complete. Non-conformances have been
    acceptably resolved.

-   Acquisitions and risk mitigations are on-track.

j.  Software Considerations:

    -   Requirements changes since PDR are identified, including those
        to language, structure, logic flow, CPU throughput and memory
        loading, re-use, safety, and security.

    -   Current operating scenarios are identified, along with fault
        detection, isolation, and recovery strategies.

    -   Current software performance estimates exist. Results meet
        requirements.

    -   Software Requirements Specification is approved. Document
        includes verification matrix mapping requirements to subsystems
        or CSCIs.

    -   Software Management Plan is approved and includes lines of code
        estimate, number of builds, tools, and procedures to be
        utilized, and the verification strategy including planned test
        environments.

    -   IV&V plans are approved. Activities are on-track. Results to
        date have been considered.

6.4.2 Total System Performance (budgets/projections/margins for combined
optical, thermal, mechanical, control, etc.):

a.  Budgets and margins for system level performance (pointing,
    throughput, etc.) are fully defined.

b.  System performance estimates are complete. Margins are adequate or
    viable corrective actions are in work.

c.  Current estimates of critical resource margins (i.e., mass, power,
    delta V, CPU throughput and memory, etc.) are regularly updated
    based on design maturity.

d.  Sufficient margin exists based on applicable standards. Viable
    corrective actions are defined for margins below guidelines.

\- Analyses are completed for:

-   Mechanical loads, stress, fracture control, and torque margins,

    -   Thermal environment, including predicted performance and
        margins,

    -   Radiation protection requirements and design margins,

-   Expected lifetime and margins for limited life items.

6.4.3 Design Analyses:

a.  All analyses critical to proof of design are complete.

b.  Additional outstanding analyses have acceptable completion dates and
    potential impacts are understood and can be reasonably accommodated.

c.  Schedules for required updates of analyses are defined.

6.4.4 Development Test Activities:

a.  Breadboard and engineering model development activities have been
    completed. Results are understood and have been iterated into the
    final design.

b.  Viable rationale exists for any outstanding testing which may at
    completion impact the design baseline, i.e. mass, power, volume,
    interfaces.

c.  All required life testing is complete. Where necessary, the design
    has been modified to accommodate results.

d.  Potential impact of other outstanding activity is understood and can
    be reasonably accommodated.

6.4.5 Risk Management:

a.  A risk management process that meets GPR requirements is defined and
    utilized.

b.  All significant risks, problems, and open items are defined and
    tracked (including programmatic, development and flight performance
    related items). Risk mitigation plans are credible and will retire
    risks in a timely fashion.

c.  Lessons learned have been appropriately researched and adapted.

d.  Reliability analyses have been updated with appropriate results
    factored into the design. Analyses include:

-   Fault Tree Analysis (FTA),

-   Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), as appropriate,

-   Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA),

-   Single Point Failure (SPF) assessment and retention rationale

-   Reliability driver (weak design links) assessment, and

-   Worst Case Analysis (WCA).

6.4.6 Safety:

a.  An approved up-to-date safety plan identifies all requirements as
    well as any planned tailoring approaches or intended
    non-compliances.

b.  Analysis of system hazards, identification of control methods, and
    definition of verification methods is complete. Documentation has
    been approved.

c.  Verification of hazard controls is on-track.

d.  Preliminary safety data package has been submitted to launch range.
    Timely updates are scheduled.

e.  Hazardous integration and test procedures and appropriate controls
    have been identified.

6.4.7 Assurance Activities:

a.  Quality Assurance plans are complete including the problem reporting
    system.

b.  Preliminary production planning and process controls (including
    strategy for control/verification of units of measurement) have been
    identified. Applicable workmanship standards have been defined.

c.  Special materials usages have been approved.

6.4.8 Implementation Plans:

a.  Equipment and facilities for the development and test of hardware
    and software have been identified. Design for mission unique items
    has been completed.

b.  Planning for Systems Integration and Test activities, including
    science validation and calibration, as well as operations
    compatibility testing, is defined. Facilities are available. Needed
    utilization agreements are complete.

c.  Risks associated with I&T have been characterized and mitigations
    are on track for timely closure.

d.  Contamination requirements and control plans are defined. Required
    implementation activities are complete.

6.4.9 Interface Control Documents:

> Up-to dates ICDs, with external systems as well as between system
> elements, are approved. No TBDs exist.

6.4.10 Qualification/Environmental Test Plans and Test Flow:

a.  Qualification/Proto-flight/Acceptance test plans are complete.

b.  Environmental verification flow is traceable from component to
    system level.

c.  Appropriate interleaving of environmental and functional test has
    been planned.

d.  Design of all mechanical and electrical GSE has been completed.

e.  Special test requirements have been fully defined. Compliance
    activities are on track.

f.  Test facilities have been defined. Facilities are available and, if
    needed, utilization agreements are complete.

6.4.11 Logistics:

a.  Transportation considerations have been fully defined including
    environmental control and monitoring requirements.

b.  Preliminary design of all GSE has been completed.

c.  Preliminary transportation container design has been completed.

6.4.12 Launch Vehicle Interfaces:

a.  ICD is complete.

b.  First flight/mission unique items have been identified and mission
    implications are understood.

c.  Launch vehicle related risk items are identified. Appropriate
    mitigations are on-track for timely completion.

d.  Vehicle Orbital Debris Assessment has been approved.

e.  Integrated payload/launch vehicle activity flow has been defined.

f.  Schedule of all vehicle/payload inter-related activities has been
    defined.

g.  Coupled loads analysis has been completed.

6.4.13 Ground Operations, Mission Operations, End-of-Life:

a.  Science and mission operations concepts are fully defined.

b.  Design of launch site and mission operations unique ground systems
    is complete.

c.  Plans are defined for launch site activities, launch & early orbit
    operations.

d.  Planning for involvement and training of launch site and of mission
    operations teams are defined.

e.  Orbital Debris Assessment is approved. End-of-life requirements and
    plans are defined.

6.4.14 Programmatics:

a.  Organization and staffing plans delineate clear responsibilities and
    adequate assignment of current and future staff.

b.  Appropriate processes and metrics are in place to track and control
    cost, schedule, and technical activities throughout the remaining
    life-cycle.

c.  Appropriately detailed schedules show realistic event times as well
    as appropriate funded slack and are compatible with approved launch
    dates.

d.  Cost to complete shows adequate spending profiles and financial
    reserves, and is compatible with allocations.

6.4.15 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  Timely response to RFAs from previous IIRT reviews has occurred.
    Resultant actions have been implemented effectively. Schedule for
    completion of any outstanding RFAs is defined.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been conducted
    and documented in compliance with GPR requirements. Resultant
    actions have been effectively dispositioned and executed.
    Appropriate additional reviews are planned.

c.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity that
    is applicable to the subject matter of the CDR have been adequately
    implemented.

**6.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the CDR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will
assess the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the
criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward
and likely to succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other
relevant factors in making a judgment as to whether the MCR has
accomplished its objectives and has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the RFAs generated at the review. In some cases a delta CDR may be
required for the project to successfully pass this milestone.

Successful completion of the CDR constitutes readiness to proceed with
full-scale fabrication.

# 7.0 MISSION OPERATIONS REVIEW (MOR)

**At the MOR, the project presents the Integrated Independent Review
Team (IIRT) with the comprehensive status of its mission operations
planning in order to demonstrate that the requirements for all phases
and modes of mission operations, data processing, and analysis are
thoroughly understood and will be adequately staffed and executed.
Additionally, the project documents that the planned implementation of
the ground system satisfies all operational requirements and that
preliminary preparation for the execution of a comprehensive
verification and validation program are complete.**

**7.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the MOR is to demonstrate that the project has identified
the full scope of the ground system's involvement in the mission and has
incorporated all aspects of flight and ground operations into the plans
and schedules necessary to support all required activities at the flight
system integration site and the launch site, as well as launch and early
orbit, routine mission, and end-of-life operations.

**7.2 Timing**

The MOR is the first of two IIRT reviews designed to focus on mission
operations. It is typically held upon completion of detailed design and
in all cases should be held prior to initiation of major integration
activities of flight subsystem elements. When scheduling the review, the
project should highlight and discuss with the review chairman any
extenuating circumstances or problem areas that may deserve
consideration regarding timing of the review or composition of the
review team.

**7.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the MOR are to demonstrate that: (a) mission
requirements are fully understood and supported by the mission
operations concept, the ground system architecture, and the
organizational and staffing approach; (b) the linkage of mission
requirements to the ground system support requirements and subsequent
flow-down to performing personnel and elements within the ground system
is complete, traceable, and verifiable; (c) planning is compatible with
applicable policies and procedures associated with asset protection
considerations such as, but not limited to, IT and physical security;
(d) considerations regarding mission operations personnel are complete
with respect to organization, roles and responsibilities, staffing and
training; (e) implementation activity associated with the design and
development of mission unique elements as well as the adaptation of
institutional elements will meet mission requirements in a timely
fashion; (f) plans for comprehensive verification and validation of
ground system elements are complete and include independent execution of
mission readiness testing and interactive testing with the flight
system; (g) the scope and approach for maintaining appropriate mission
system elements (such as flight and ground software) throughout their
operational lifetime are well understood.

The MOR should focus predominately upon the planning in areas driven by
operational considerations. To that end, it is not an in-depth review of
the design. Project peer review activity and other mission level IIRT
reviews address those considerations. Consequently, information on
development tasks should focus on current status and plans for
interacting with verification and operations related activities in a
coordinated fashion.

Specifically, the areas listed below, as a minimum, shall be addressed
in sufficient detail to permit assessment of compliance with the success
criteria delineated in the following section:

a.  Mission Requirements / Operations Concept

b.  Documentation

c.  Risk Management

d.  Safety / Security

e.  Assurance Activities

f.  Operations Planning

g.  Flight Team Development

h.  Implementation

i.  Test Planning

j.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 7.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

7.4.1 Mission Requirements / Operations Concept:

a.  Ground system requirements are fully linked to mission requirements
    and are functionally allocated in a manner that permits traceability
    and the creation of verification matrixes.

b.  Mission support requirements are fully documented and a process for
    identifying and tracking changes to the requirements baseline is in
    place.

c.  Major constraints associated with flight (including the spacecraft,
    instrument, and launch vehicle elements) and ground systems have
    been fully accommodated within the operations concept and reflected
    in the ground system support requirements. A plan for capturing
    lower-level constraints and restrictions in a timely fashion is
    defined.

7.4.2 Documentation:

a.  Mission Operations Concept Document is complete (no TBDs) and
    baselined.

b.  Detailed Mission Requirements Document is current with no TBDs and
    baselined

c.  Approach for documenting flight operations information, including
    contingencies, trending plans, and S/C and instrument operational
    constraints is fully defined with the following applicable documents
    in preliminary form:

-   Flight Operations Plan

-   Flight Procedures Document

-   Launch and Ascent Handbook

-   Mission Rules

-   Operations Agreements

-   Flight Operations Test Plan

-   Flight Operations Team Certification Plan

-   On-Orbit Handbook

-   Spacecraft User's Manual

d.  Element-level Requirements Specifications, Design Specifications and
    ICDs are complete with no TBDs.

e.  Mission Readiness Test Plan has been completed and Test Requirements
    Database has been prepared.

    3.  Risk Management:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  All ground system related risks are fully defined, documented and
    regularly updated with credible triggers and mitigation strategies
    defined. Any active mitigations strategies are on track.

b.  The risk management system is fully compliant with and appropriately
    linked to the project risk management system.

c.  Lessons learned have been appropriately researched and adapted.

7.4.4 Safety / Security:

a.  Hazards identification, control methods, and verification approaches
    have been defined and approved.

b.  Required documentation, such as the IT documentation set required in
    NPR 2810.1, is complete. Completion dates have been defined for
    necessary updates and for other documentation.

c.  Personnel and physical security considerations have been defined and
    are compatible with all applicable requirements.

7.4.5 Assurance Activities:

a.  Quality Assurance planning, including problem reporting, is in
    compliance with applicable policy, complete, and approved.

b.  Required IV&V activities are fully defined and on schedule.

7.4.6 Operations Planning:

a.  Mission operations plans are complete for all routine operational
    scenarios. Areas from which contingency operations requirements will
    arise are identified.

b.  Science data acquisition, processing and analysis approach is
    defined and plans for maintaining data throughput and integrity have
    been identified*.*

c.  Spacecraft operations at the system- and subsystem-levels are well
    understood for the routine, special and contingency operations
    modes.

d.  The approach to mission planning and scheduling is fully defined.

e.  Preliminary plans for launch and early orbit (including deployment
    activities, in-orbit checkout, and communication coverage), routine
    science data acquisition (including health and safety monitoring as
    well as on-board data memory management), contingency, safe-mode,
    and end-of-life scenarios are complete.

f.  Adequate planning has been completed for the successful definition,
    development, verification, validation and configuration management
    of all operations procedures.

g.  The planned flight and ground software maintenance approach is
    defined.

h.  The development approach for receipt of interim databases and
    operating procedures from flight system element providers is
    defined.

i.  Passive and active approaches for insight into flight system- and
    subsystem-level activities during integration are defined.

j.  The approach for offline parameter trending is defined. The data
    archival, retrieval, and reporting approach are defined. Anomaly
    reporting is integrated into these plans.

7.4.7 Flight Team Development:

a.  Flight Operations Team (FOT) roles, responsibilities, staffing
    levels (including timing of and numbers during initial phase-in as
    well as for each mission phase), certification requirements, and
    training approach, are defined.

b.  Plans for preparing the FOT for operations through the use of
    classroom training, mission simulations, flight rehearsals, and
    network exercises are fully defined.

c.  Plans for involvement of FOT in key flight system activities such as
    Thermal-Vacuum testing and Comprehensive System Testing are defined.

d.  Plans are defined for integrating flight system- and subsystem-level
    experts in a manner that creates a unified mission operations team.

7.4.8 Implementation:

a.  The design and development of mission-unique ground system elements
    are compliant with requirements. Designation of launch critical
    facilities and functions has been made. Development progress is
    satisfactory.

b.  The modifications of institutional ground system elements are
    compliant with mission requirements. Any modifications are defined
    and implementation progress is satisfactory.

c.  Development schedules have been defined for all development
    activities and integrated with operational activities and the
    top-level project schedule.

d.  The facilities identified to host ground system elements and support
    simulations have been identified, are adequate, or if modifications
    are required then necessary plans have been completely defined and
    work schedules support the schedules. Management of critical
    resources will be adequate to support mission reliability
    requirements.

e.  Preliminary loading studies for institutional elements such as the
    Space Network, Ground Network and NASA Integrated Services Network
    (NISN) are complete.

7.4.9 Test Planning:

a.  Intra- and inter-element test approaches are defined and scheduled.

b.  A mission readiness test approach of the integrated ground system is
    defined in a separate written test plan and includes RF
    Compatibility and network compatibility verification. Test
    requirements are traceable to system-level documentation and derived
    strictly from element-level documentation. Activities are on track.

c.  Validation activities with the flight system, adequate in both scope
    and number, are planned prior to shipment of the flight system to
    the launch site. Simulations and rehearsals, using the end-to-end
    flight and ground system and involving the entire mission operations
    team, are included in these activities. Such tests shall include
    stress induced operational situations based upon anticipated and
    unanticipated contingencies and anomalies.

d.  Sufficient test opportunities are planned at the launch site both
    prior to and after integration with the launch vehicle. Such testing
    will include validation of the space/ground interface. Adequate
    periods shall be allocated to accommodate regression testing to
    confirm resolution of anomalies.

7.4.10 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  Timely responses to RFAs from previous IIRT reviews have occurred.
    In the event that RFAs are still open then disclosure of the
    remaining work prerequisite to closure is to be provided along a
    description of the current risk exposure.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been conducted
    and documented in compliance with GPR requirements. Resultant
    actions have been dispositioned and modifications made. Appropriate
    additional reviews are planned.

c.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity that
    is applicable to the subject matter of the MOR have been adequately
    implemented.

**7.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the MOR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairman (in consultation with the review team) will assess
the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the criticality of
the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward and likely to
succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other relevant factors in
making a judgment as to whether the MOR has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the Requests For Action (RFAs) generated at the review. In some cases
the review chairman may determine that a delta-MOR is necessary.

Successful completion of the MOR constitutes readiness to continue with
the execution of project plans associated with developing the required
ground system elements, and the preparation of operations personnel
necessary to operate them. The results of the plans presented at the MOR
will be reviewed at the Flight Operations Review, the second of the two
IIRT reviews that focus on mission operations.

# 8.0 PRE-ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (PER)

**At the PER, the project discloses to the Integrated Independent Review
Team (IIRT) the complete and comprehensive project status in order to
justify readiness to proceed with environmental testing of the
integrated flight system and to demonstrate that the project is on track
to complete the flight and ground system development and mission
operations in order to fully meet mission performance requirements
within allocated cost and schedule resources.**

**8.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the PER is to demonstrate readiness to proceed with
environmental testing of the integrated flight system and to demonstrate
that the project is on track to complete the flight and ground system
development and mission operations in order to fully meet mission
performance requirements within allocated cost and schedule resources.
To that end, the project demonstrates that a requirements-compliant
flight system design has been fabricated, appropriately tested at lower
levels of assembly, integrated, and subjected to a successful
comprehensive systems test. In addition, adequacy of planning for
subsequent flight system activities, satisfactory progress on
development of other system elements, and adequacy of available
resources to complete remaining project activities shall be
demonstrated.

**8.2 Timing**

The PER is held after completion of the initial successful comprehensive
systems test of the fully-integrated flight system and prior to
initiation of the system level environmental test sequence. When
scheduling the review, the project should highlight and discuss with the
review chairperson(s) any extenuating circumstances or problem areas
that may deserve consideration regarding timing of the review or
composition of the review team.

**8.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the PER are to demonstrate that: (a) all supportive
flight system design analyses have been successfully completed and
demonstrate adequate margin, (b) all lower level flight system
verification activities have been satisfactorily completed and all
discrepancies are sufficiently understood to warrant proceeding, (c)
initial flight system comprehensive performance testing has established
a valid performance baseline that complies with requirements, (d)
planning is adequate for all remaining flight system activities, (e)
development of all other flight system elements (e.g.: launch vehicle,
ground system, data processing and analysis system) is satisfactory, and
(f) available cost and schedule resources support completion of all
necessary remaining activities with adequate margin.

The PER should present a complete and comprehensive status of the final
system with emphasis on changes to requirements and to the design since
CDR. It should trace all fabrication and lower level verification
activities with emphasis on discrepancies and their resolution. It
should detail the composition and results of the comprehensive system
test. It should detail all remaining project activities and detail
status of all other mission system elements.

Programmatic considerations shall be discussed in sufficient detail to
permit assessment of relevant review objectives.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Requirements / Design Update

b.  Completed Verification Activities

c.  Risk Management

d.  Safety

e.  Assurance Activities

f.  System Test Activity

g.  Launch Site Activities

h.  Launch Vehicle Interfaces

i.  Mission Operations

j.  Programmatics

k.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 8.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

8.4.1 Requirements / Design Update:

a.  Requirements and design changes to hardware or software since CDR
    and attendant rationale are documented. As required, ICDs have been
    updated and approved. Resultant changes to verification matrix have
    been incorporated and approved.

b.  Current status of compliance with the Goddard Rules (GSFC-STD-1000)
    reflects adequate progress of activities to date and satisfactory
    plans for future activities. Any required waivers / deviations have
    been approved.

c.  Changes since CDR to heritage applicability or resultant
    verification thereof have been documented and approved.

d.  Current calculations of all critical resource margins are adequate
    and based on actual measured values.

8.4.2 Completed Verification Results:

a.  Current calculations for systems performance are fully compliant
    with requirements.

b.  Completed analyses of current design demonstrate adequate margin
    for:

-   mechanical loads, stress, and torque margin,

    -   thermal effects,

    -   radiation protection, and

    -   expected lifetime of limited life items.

    c.  Results of ETU testing since CDR are documented. The design
        reflects the results.

    d.  Life testing of limited life items is complete and the design
        appropriately reflects results.

    e.  Results of all hardware and software verification activities
        below the fully integrated flight system level are successfully
        complete, including those associated with compatibility of units
        of measurement. The project verification matrix documents the
        results of such.

    f.  All discrepancies (non-conformances, anomalies, failures,
        "cannot duplicate"s, etc.) are fully explained and justify
        proceeding to subsequent activities. All waivers are approved.

    g.  A fully successful Comprehensive Performance Test of the fully
        integrated flight system has been completed. All discrepancies
        are fully explained and justify proceeding to subsequent
        activities.

8.4.3 Safety:

a.  Hazards and control methods have been defined and approved.

b.  Verification of controls is on-track.

c.  Required documentation is complete. Timely updates are scheduled.

d.  Appropriate interaction with test facilities, the launch range, and
    the launch vehicle is on track.

e.  End-of-life scenarios are fully approved.

8.4.4 Risk Management:

a.  All development related risks are fully retired and associated
    residual risk is approved.

b.  Risks associated with remaining activities are defined and credible
    mitigations will retire risks in a timely fashion.

c.  Lessons learned have been appropriately researched and adapted.

d.  A credible plan for utilization of limited life items and
    consumables (e.g.: cryogenic fluids, pyrotechnics, batteries,
    mechanisms) has been approved.

8.4.5 Assurance Activities:

a.  Appropriate reliability analyses have been updated.

b.  Quality Assurance planning for all subsequent activities are
    complete and approved.

c.  All discrepancies have been reviewed for acceptable closure. Any
    items requiring special attention or monitoring during subsequent
    activity have been identified and appropriate action planned.

d.  EEE parts and materials related qualification tests are successfully
    completed.

e.  Any waivers are approved.

f.  IV&V activities are successfully completed.

8.4.6 System Test Planning:

a.  Planning for Integrated Systems Test activities is complete and
    includes sufficient activity devoted to science validation and
    calibration, and operations compatibility testing.

b.  Adequate systems performance testing is planned during and between
    environmental exposures so as to ensure adequate functionality or
    uncover any deviations. Adequate testing of primary and redundant
    elements is planned.

c.  Sufficient operating time (including failure-free operating time)
    will be obtained. Critical parameters to be trended throughout the
    system test sequence are defined.

d.  A comprehensive environmental test sequence at appropriate exposure
    levels is planned that will complete all remaining required
    verification activities.

e.  Facility readiness reviews have been completed. Resultant actions
    are on track for timely completion. Handling equipment and test
    equipment are qualified and ready for use.

f.  Contamination control plans and required equipment are in place and
    compliant with requirements.

8.4.7 Launch Site Activities:

a.  Transportation plans are fully defined. Shipping containers,
    handling equipment, environmental control and monitoring equipment
    are complete and available. Qualification activities are on track.

b.  Launch site activity plan is approved and includes appropriate
    comprehensive system performance testing.

c.  Facilities are available for use. Support requirements, including
    contamination control, will be met.

d.  Ground handling and support equipment are qualified and available.

8.4.8 Launch Vehicle Interfaces:

a.  An approved up-to-date ICD is in place.

b.  First flight/mission unique items have been qualified for use.

c.  Launch vehicle related risk items are retired. Residual risks are
    approved.

d.  Vehicle Orbital Debris Assessment has been approved.

e.  Integrated payload/launch vehicle activity flow has been approved.

f.  Schedule of all vehicle/payload inter-related activities has been
    approved.

g.  An updated coupled loads analysis has been completed.

8.4.9 Mission Operations:

a.  Mission operations plans are complete for all routine and
    contingency scenarios.

b.  Mission operations systems are complete and available.

c.  Operations team staffing needs are fully defined. Staffing will be
    available to support simulations.

d.  Planning for involvement and training of launch site and of mission
    operations teams are defined.

e.  End-to-end operational simulations of flight and ground mission
    systems by actual operations team are planned and include launch and
    early orbit, routine science data acquisition, contingency, and
    end-of-life scenarios.

8.4.10 Programmatics:

a.  Organization and staffing plans delineate clear responsibilities and
    adequate assignment of current and future staff.

b.  Appropriate processes and metrics are in place to track and control
    cost, schedule, and technical activities throughout the remaining
    life-cycle.

c.  Appropriately detailed schedules show realistic event times as well
    as appropriate funded slack and are compatible with approved launch
    dates.

d.  Cost to complete shows adequate spending profiles and financial
    reserves, and is compatible with allocations.

8.4.11 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  Timely response to RFAs from previous IIRT reviews has occurred.
    Resultant actions have been implemented effectively. Schedule for
    completion of any outstanding RFAs is defined.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been conducted
    and documented in compliance with GPR requirements. Resultant
    actions have been effectively dispositioned and executed.
    Appropriate additional reviews are planned.

c.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity that
    is applicable to the subject matter of the PER have been adequately
    implemented.

**8.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the PER. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will
assess the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the
criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward
and likely to succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other
relevant factors in making a judgment as to whether the MCR has
accomplished its objectives and has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the RFAs generated at the review. In some cases a delta PER may be
required.

Successful completion of the PER constitutes readiness to proceed with
environmental testing of the flight system.

# 9.0 FLIGHT OPERATIONS REVIEW (FOR)

**At the FOR, the project presents the Integrated Independent Review
Team (IIRT) with the results of its mission operations activities to
demonstrate that compliance with all requirements have been verified and
that the ability to execute all phases and modes of mission operations,
data processing, and analysis have been demonstrated. Additionally, the
project demonstrates that adequate planning and resources are in place
for any remaining activities associated with interactive flight/and
ground testing, network compatibility testing, and other remaining
pre-launch testing. Finally, completion status of staffing, training and
certification of the flight team are reviewed.**

**9.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the FOR is to demonstrate that ground system mission
elements are ready to proceed with final integrated flight and ground
system testing as well as remaining support to pre-launch, launch,
mission operations, data processing, and analysis activities. To that
end, the project provides results of activities since the MOR as well as
plans for all remaining work prior to launch.

**9.2 Timing**

The FOR is the second of two IIRT reviews held to examine mission
operations status. It is held during the test flow of the fully
integrated flight system, after completion of the initial successful
comprehensive systems test but prior to the last major interactive test
between the flight and ground system elements that is conducted before
shipment of flight system elements to the launch site. When scheduling
the review, the project should highlight and discuss with the review
chairperson(s) any extenuating circumstances or problem areas that may
deserve consideration regarding timing of the review or composition of
the review team.

**9.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the FOR are to demonstrate that: (a) all mission
requirements, including any changes since the MOR, have been fully
supported by the mission operations concept, the ground system
architecture, and the organizational and staffing approach; (b) asset
protection considerations, including IT and physical security, are
complete and compatible with applicable policies and procedures; (c)
organizational reporting, roles and responsibilities, staffing and
training of mission operations personnel are complete; (d) the design of
mission unique ground system elements as well as any required
institutional elements has been verified as compatible with mission
requirements and all discrepancies have been satisfactorily resolved;
(e) comprehensive independent verification and validation of the ground
system, including mission readiness testing and interactive testing with
the flight system has been completed and all discrepancies have been
satisfactorily resolved; (f) plans for remaining pre-launch activities
as well as all operational scenarios and contingencies are complete with
adequate simulation planned for all situations; (g) the scope and
approaches for maintaining mission system elements (such as flight and
ground software) throughout their operational lifetime are fully
defined, planned, and staffed.

The FOR should highlight any changes to requirements or design since the
MOR. It should provide details of verification and checkout of ground
system elements with emphasis on discrepancies and their resolution. It
should detail all remaining activities and emphasize adequacy of
operations planning and planned testing to demonstrate that all
operations scenarios can be handled successfully.

In general, all areas addressed at the MOR shall be updated as to
current status at the FOR. Specifically, the areas listed below shall be
discussed in sufficient detail to permit assessment of compliance with
the success criteria delineated in the following section:

a.  Mission Requirements / Operations Concept

b.  Documentation

c.  Risk Management

d.  Safety / Security

e.  Assurance Activities

f.  Operations Planning/Demonstration

g.  Flight Team Development

h.  Implementation

i.  Testing

j.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 9.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

9.4.1 Mission Requirements / Operations Concept:

a.  Mission support requirements documentation is current, including any
    changes since MOR.

b.  Ground system requirements, including any changes since MOR, are
    fully traceable to mission requirements. Verification results have
    been documented in the verification matrixes.

c.  All constraints associated with flight (including the spacecraft,
    instrument, and launch vehicle elements) and ground systems,
    including any changes since MOR, have been fully accommodated

9.4.2 Documentation:

a.  Mission Operations Concept Document is current and approved.

b.  Detailed Mission Requirements Document is current and approved.

c.  Approach for documenting flight operations information, including
    contingencies, trending plans, and all operational constraints is
    fully functional with the following applicable documents current and
    approved:

-   Flight Operations Plan

-   Flight Procedures Document

-   Launch and Ascent Handbook

-   Mission Rules

-   Operations Agreements

-   Flight Operations Test Plan

-   Flight Operations Team Certification Plan

-   On-Orbit Handbook

-   Spacecraft User's Manual

d.  Element-level Requirements Specifications, Design Specifications and
    ICDs are current and approved.

e.  Mission Readiness Test Plan is current and approved. Test
    Requirements Database is current and operational.

    3.  Risk Management:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  All ground system related risk mitigations have been successfully
    executed. Residual risks are fully understood and have been
    accepted.

b.  Lessons learned have been fully researched. All applicable lessons
    have been adapted.

9.4.4 Safety / Security:

a.  Hazard control methods have been verified. Hazard reports are
    closed.

b.  Required updates to documentation, such as the IT documentation set
    required in NPR 2810.1, are complete and approved.

c.  Personnel and physical security considerations are complete and
    compatible with all applicable requirements.

9.4.5 Assurance Activities:

a.  Quality Assurance activity is defined and operational. Problem
    reporting databases reflect current status, including any
    discrepancies that occurred during verification and validation
    activities. Open problem reports are being actively investigated and
    tracked. Closed problem reports are fully understood. Any required
    waivers are approved.

b.  IV&V activities are complete.

9.4.6 Operations Planning/Demonstration:

a.  Mission operations plans are complete for all operational scenarios
    and contingency situations.

b.  Science data acquisition, processing and analysis approach is fully
    implemented.

c.  Approach for maintaining data throughput and integrity have been
    verified*.*

d.  The approach to mission planning and scheduling has been
    successfully verified.

e.  Scenarios for launch and early orbit (including deployment
    activities, in-orbit checkout, and communication coverage), routine
    science data acquisition (including health and safety monitoring as
    well as on-board data memory management), contingency, safe-mode,
    and end-of-life have been verified.

f.  All operations procedures are current, verified, and approved.

g.  The flight and ground software maintenance approach has been
    verified.

h.  Databases and operating procedures from flight system element
    providers are current and have been appropriately incorporated into
    ground system operations.

i.  The approach for offline parameter trending is operational. The data
    archival, retrieval, and reporting approach is operational. Anomaly
    reporting of detected trends is an integral part of the process.

9.4.7 Flight Team Development:

a.  Flight Operations Team (FOT) roles and responsibilities, as
    currently defined, are documented and approved. Staffing levels meet
    current needs. Staffing needs for all future mission phases are
    defined with plans in place to secure the necessary staff in time to
    complete training prior to being placed in line with operations.

b.  Certification and training on board staff is complete. Plans for
    certification and training of future staff are complete and
    approved.

c.  Training of the FOT for operations through the use of classroom
    training, mission simulations, flight rehearsals, and network
    exercises has been completed.

d.  Flight system- and subsystem-level experts have been effectively
    integrated into the FOT to form a unified team.

9.4.8 Implementation:

a.  The design of mission-unique ground system elements has been
    verified to be compliant with requirements. Launch critical
    facilities and functions have been verified ready to provide the
    required mission support.

b.  Required institutional ground system elements have been verified to
    be compliant with mission requirements.

c.  The facilities needed to host ground system elements and support
    simulations have been verified.

d.  Loading studies for institutional elements such as the Space
    Network, Ground Network and NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN)
    are complete. Results are compatible with mission needs.

9.4.9 Testing:

a.  Intra- and Inter-element tests have been successfully completed. All
    discrepancies are fully understood. Corrective actions have been
    fully implemented.

b.  Mission readiness testing of the integrated ground system has been
    successfully completed. All discrepancies are fully understood.
    Corrective actions have been fully implemented. RF Compatibility and
    network compatibility have been verified.

c.  Validation activities with the flight system, adequate in both scope
    and number, have been completed using the launch-support S/W
    versions. Adequate simulations and rehearsals, using the end-to-end
    flight and ground system, involving the entire mission operations
    team, and including stress induced operational situations based upon
    anticipated and unanticipated contingencies and anomalies, have been
    conducted.

d.  Sufficient test opportunities are planned at the launch site both
    prior to and after integration with the launch vehicle. Such testing
    will include validation of the space/ground interface. Adequate
    periods are allocated to accommodate regression testing which may be
    needed in order to confirm and document the acceptable resolution of
    anomalies.

9.4.10 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  Timely responses to RFAs from previous IIRT reviews have occurred.
    In the event that RFAs are still open then disclosure of the
    remaining work prerequisite to closure is to be provided along a
    description of the current risk exposure.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been conducted
    and documented in compliance with GPR requirements. Resultant
    actions have been dispositioned and modifications made. Appropriate
    additional reviews are planned.

c.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity that
    is applicable to the subject matter of the FOR have been adequately
    implemented.

**9.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the FOR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairman (in consultation with the review team) will assess
the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the criticality of
the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward and likely to
succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other relevant factors in
making a judgment as to whether the FOR has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the Requests For Action (RFAs) generated at the review. In some cases
the review chairman may determine that a delta-FOR is necessary.

Successful completion of the FOR constitutes readiness to proceed with
final integrated flight and ground system testing as well as with other
remaining activity needed to support pre-launch, launch, mission
operations, data processing, and analysis.

# 10.0 PRE-SHIP REVIEW (PSR)

**At the PSR, the project discloses current status of all activities and
establishes that all flight and ground system verification activities
have been successfully completed and that the system is ready for final
processing prior to launch and mission operations.**

**10.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the PSR is to demonstrate that the flight system is ready
for shipment to the launch site and for final processing prior to launch
and mission operations.

To that end, the project demonstrates that all performance and
environmental verification activities of the integrated flight system
have been successfully completed, that all ground system verification
and compatibility testing have been successfully completed, that all
discrepancies of any type have been satisfactorily resolved, and that
planning and preparation for all remaining activities has been
completed.

**10.2 Timing**

The PSR is conducted prior to shipment of flight system elements to the
launch site and after successful completion of all verification
activities of flight and ground system elements. When scheduling the
review, the project should highlight and discuss with the review
chairperson(s) any significant problem areas that may pose difficulty
during the review.

**10.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the PER are to demonstrate that: (a) all functional
performance and environmental testing of the flight system has been
successfully completed, including network and ground system
compatibility testing as well as mission simulations, (b) all
discrepancies are fully understood and satisfactorily resolved,
including completion of corrective actions as well as planning and
preparation of any required follow-on actions, (c) any changes since the
PER have been evaluated for mission implications, have been successfully
incorporated into appropriate system elements, have been verified, and
are compatible with any interfacing system element, and (d) planning and
preparation for shipping and subsequent ground processing, launch, and
mission operations is complete.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Requirements / Design Update

b.  Completed Verification Activities

c.  Risk Management

d.  Safety

e.  Assurance Activities

f.  Launch Site Activities

g.  Mission Operations

h.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 10.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

10.4.1 Requirements / Design Update:

a.  Requirements and design changes to hardware or software since PER
    and attendant rationale are documented. Mission implications and
    interface compatibility have been considered, and verification
    updates (analyses and tests) have been completed.

b.  Current status of compliance with the Goddard Rules (GSFC-STD-1000)
    reflects adequate progress of activities to date and satisfactory
    plans for future activities. Any required waivers / deviations have
    been approved.

c.  Current calculations of all critical resource margins remain
    adequate and based on actual measured values.

d.  Analyses of the current design are complete and demonstrate adequate
    margin.

10.4.2 Completed Verification Results:

a.  All integrated flight system performance and environmental
    verification activities have been successfully completed.

b.  Ground system verification activities have been successfully
    completed.

c.  Network compatibility demonstrations have been successfully
    completed.

d.  All verification results have been documented in the verification
    matrix, including those associated with compatibility of units of
    measurement.

e.  Mission simulations of all operational scenarios, including
    contingency situations, have been successfully completed.

f.  Current calculations for systems performance have been updated as
    appropriate with system test results and continue to demonstrate
    full compliance with system requirements.

g.  All discrepancies (non-conformances, anomalies, failures, "cannot
    duplicate"'s, etc.) are fully understood. Corrective actions are
    completed, and plans and preparations for any required follow-on
    actions are completed. All waivers are approved.

10.4.3 Safety:

a.  Hazard verifications are complete.

b.  Required documentation is complete.

c.  End-of-life scenarios are fully approved.

10.4.4 Risk Management:

> All risks have been fully retired. Residual risks, including those
> resulting from incomplete or uncertain closure of discrepancies, have
> been fully characterized and formally accepted by appropriate
> management.

10.4.5 Assurance Activities:

a.  Quality Assurance planning for all subsequent activities are
    complete and approved.

b.  All discrepancies have been reviewed for acceptable closure. Any
    items requiring special attention or monitoring during subsequent
    activity, including during mission operations, have been identified
    and appropriate action planned.

c.  IV&V activity is successfully completed, including updates resulting
    from recent changes.

10.4.6 Launch Site Activities:

a.  Transportation plans are fully defined. Shipping containers,
    handling equipment, environmental control and monitoring equipment
    are verified and available.

b.  Launch site facilities are available and have been verified to meet
    requirements, including those for contamination control.

c.  Launch site activity plan, including integrated activity with the
    launch vehicle, is approved and includes appropriate comprehensive
    system performance testing as well as end-to-end system
    compatibility testing.

10.4.7 Mission Operations:

a.  Mission operations plans are complete for all routine and
    contingency scenarios.

b.  Mission operations systems are complete and available.

c.  Operations team staffing is in place. Required personnel
    certifications have been approved.

d.  Adequate end-to-end operational simulations of flight and ground
    mission systems have been completed by actual operations team.

10.4.8 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  All RFAs from all previous IIRT reviews are closed. Resultant
    actions have been implemented effectively.

b.  An appropriate set of engineering peer reviews has been completed
    and documented in compliance with GPR requirements. Resultant
    actions have been effectively implemented.

c.  Recommendations from other project or external review activity have
    been adequately implemented.

**10.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the PSR. Subsequent to the review, therefore,
the review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will
assess the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the
criticality of the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward
and likely to succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other
relevant factors in making a judgment as to whether the MCR has
accomplished its objectives and has been successfully completed.
Successful completion may be contingent on the responses to some or all
of the RFAs generated at the review. In some cases a delta-PSR may be
required for the project to successfully pass this milestone.

Successful completion of the PSR constitutes readiness for shipment of
the flight segment to the launch site.

# 11.0 DISPOSAL REVIEW (DR)

**At the DR, the project presents to the IIRT the rationale and plans
for decommissioning and safe disposal of mission assets in order to
confirm its readiness to proceed with executing those plans.**

**11.1 Purpose**

The purpose of the DR is to confirm readiness to proceed with the safe
decommissioning and disposal of mission assets with particular attention
to those assets in Earth orbit.

To that end, the project demonstrates that the reasons for
decommissioning are valid, that plans for safe and effective disposal of
assets, in particular flight assets, have been completed, and that
disposal activities can and will be successfully executed in a timely
fashion.

**11.2 Timing**

The DR is normally conducted near the end of routine mission operations
upon accomplishment of planned mission objectives. It may be advanced if
some unplanned event gives rise to a need to pre-maturely terminate the
mission, or delayed if operational life is extended to permit additional
investigations.

**11.3 Objectives**

The objectives of the DR are to demonstrate that: (a) the requirements
associated with decommissioning and disposal are fully understood, (b)
plans for decommissioning, disposal, and any transition are correct,
current and appropriate for existing safety, environmental, and other
constraints as well as current system capabilities, (c) resources are in
place to support decommissioning and disposal activities, and (d)
appropriate plans have been completed for disposition of project assets
and archival of essential mission and project data.

Specifically, the areas listed below shall be addressed in sufficient
detail to permit a judgment by the IIRT regarding accomplishment of
review objectives. That judgment will be guided by attainment of the
expectations delineated in the following section:

a.  Requirements and Constraints

b.  Current System Capability

c.  Implementation Planning

d.  Readiness Verification

e.  Project and Independent Review Activity

## 11.4 Criteria for Successful Completion 

11.4.1 Requirements and Constraints:

a.  Rationale for decommissioning and disposal is appropriate and well
    documented.

b.  Safety, health, and environmental requirements are fully defined.
    Applicable updates to such since launch have been identified and
    implications understood. Required waivers, if any, have been
    approved.

c.  System performance requirements for both the flight and ground
    systems, as well as supporting communications networks, have been
    defined and reflect current needs and applicable constraints.

d.  Operations requirements to support decommissioning and disposal
    activities have been defined and reflect current needs and
    applicable constraints. Personnel certification requirements have
    been identified.

11.4.2 Current System Capability:

a.  Changes to hardware and software since launch have been considered
    with respect to potential impact on compliance with decommissioning
    and disposal requirements.

b.  Critical resources (e.g.: power, propellant, link margin, data
    storage, processing speed) are adequate to support required
    activities based on actual measured values.

c.  All discrepancies that have occurred since launch have been assessed
    for implications related to the ability to successfully execute
    decommissioning and disposal activities. Alterations to previously
    planned scenarios have been modified as needed.

d.  Analyses of the currently planned and potential alternate disposal
    configurations demonstrate adequate performance capability to meet
    requirements.

11.4.3 Implementation Planning:

a.  The decommissioning and disposal plan is complete, approved by
    appropriate management, and compliant with applicable agency safety,
    environmental, and health regulations.

b.  Safety, health and environmental hazards have been identified.
    Controls have been verified.

c.  Risks associated with the disposal have been identified and
    adequately mitigated. Residual risks have been accepted by the
    required management.

d.  Operations plans for all potential scenarios, including
    contingencies, are complete and approved. All required support
    systems are available.

e.  Quality assurance plans for all subsequent activities have been
    defined and approved. Plans identify problem reporting and
    resolution requirements, including situations requiring real-time
    action in response to anomalous occurrences.

f.  If hardware is to be recovered from orbit:

    -   Return site activity plans have been defined and approved.

    -   Required facilities are available and meet requirements,
        including those for contamination control, if needed.

    -   Transportation plans are defined and approved. Shipping
        containers and handling equipment as well as contamination and
        environmental control and monitoring devices are available.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
g.  Plans for disposition of mission owned assets (hardware, software,
    facilities, etc.) have been defined and approved.

h.  Plans for archival and subsequent analysis of mission data have been
    defined and approved. Arrangements have been finalized for the
    execution of such.

i.  Plans for the capture and dissemination of appropriate lessons
    learned during the project life cycle have been defined and
    approved.

j.  Adequate resources (schedule, budget, and staffing) have been
    identified and are available to successfully complete all
    decommissioning, disposal, and disposition activities.

11.4.4 Readiness Verification:

a.  All flight and ground system performance verification activities
    have been completed. Anomalies have been satisfactorily resolved and
    implications of such on upcoming activities have been accommodated.

b.  Required personnel certifications have been completed.

c.  Simulations of all potential scenarios, including contingencies,
    have been successfully completed by the actual operations team.

d.  Demonstrations of communications network support have been
    successfully completed. Anomalies have been satisfactorily resolved
    and any needed changes incorporated.

e.  Any required IV&V activity necessitated by changes to software since
    launch has been completed. Recommendations from such have been
    satisfactorily accommodated.

11.4.5 Project and Independent Review Activity:

a.  A set of engineering peer reviews has been conducted for appropriate
    technical areas. Recommendations from such have been satisfactorily
    accommodated.

b.  Recommendations from other project or external reviews with bearing
    on upcoming activities have been satisfactorily accommodated.

**11.5 Results of Review**

It is recognized that projects may not fully satisfy all of the above
criteria at the time of the DR. Subsequent to the review, therefore, the
review chairperson(s), in consultation with the review team, will assess
the degree to which the above criteria have been met, the criticality of
the areas where there are shortfalls, how straightforward and likely to
succeed are the project's recovery plans, and other relevant factors in
making a judgment as to whether the MCR has accomplished its objectives
and has been successfully completed. Successful completion may be
contingent on the responses to some or all of the RFAs generated at the
review. In some cases a delta DR may be required for the project to
successfully pass this milestone.

Successful completion of the DR constitutes readiness to proceed with
decommissioning and disposal activities.