# Presentation: 817084

## Section 30

_***Section 30***_
***Flight Assurance***

*** ******. . . Michael P. Kelly***
*EO-1 Systems Assurance Manager *

## Mission Assurance Approach Used

***Mission Assurance Approach Used***

***Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) dated April 1997 were tailored for the Faster, Cheaper, Better environment.***
***From project inception to Fall 1999, project was driven purely by schedule and cost.  Technical balance was not there.***
***Since Fall 1999, there has been an appropriate balance between schedule/cost/technical.  Technical has taken priority.  See next chart for examples:***

## Mission Assurance Approach Used

***Mission Assurance Approach Used***

***1)******	******SAM polled subsystem engineers in Fall 1999 to understand what additional testing at both the subsystem and spacecraft levels should be performed prior to, during, and after thermal vacuum.  All of the testing requests were evaluated and added to the schedule.***
***2)******	******A second spacecraft Thermal Vacuum test has been proposed by the project.***
***3)******	******Reliability analysis has been and is continuing to be performed on the WARP.***
***4)******	******FMEA analysis on the spacecraft has been performed.***
***5)******	******Fault Tree and Probabilistic Risk Analysis are being performed.***

## Mission Assurance Approach Used

***Mission Assurance Approach Used***

***The following elements are included in the MAR:***
***Quality Assurance System which meets the intent of ISO 9000***
***NASA Workmanship Standards***
***Failure Reporting***
***Surveillance of the Contractor***
***Formal Assurance and Informal Peer Reviews ***
***Safety ***
***Materials and Parts ***
***Reliability***
***Software***
***Verification***
***Contamination***

## Parts

***Parts***

***Requirement***
***All parts were selected in accordance with GSFC 311-INST-001 for Grade 3 quality level***
***Part Issues Remaining:***
***There are no open parts issues***

## Parts Waivers

***Parts Waivers***

***Part Waivers were written on the following hardware: ***
***LM698: Waiver for use of Commercial Parts in WARP RF Exciter Board  (medium risk to the baseline mission, low risk to the minimal mission due to the S-Band backup)***
***AC #5: Unsure of final part quality for the AC -- as-built parts list is still outstanding.  Parts traceability is questionable (low risk due to Category III)***
***GPS #2, LFSA #1, and PPT #10: Parts not in compliance with the MAR (GPS is low risk, because GPS is not mission critical, and the LFSA and PPT are low risk due to Category III)***

## Parts Waivers (continued)

***Parts Waivers ****(continued)*

***Additional Waivers***
***ALI #1, #2, and #4 through #7: Various part and radiation issues (low risk due to redundancy built into the design)***
***ALI #3: Use of Screened Commercial Heaters (low risk - heaters were screened to usage voltage and not beyond that)***
***WARP #6: Parts Stress Analysis not formally performed on paper for the WARP (low risk, a schedule-driven decision)  ***
***Star Tracker (LM774): Parts not in compliance with the MAR (low risk, live without the tracker and still perform majority of mission)***

## Materials

***Materials***

***Materials Requirements: NASA Reference Publication 1124 entitled “Outgassing Data for Selecting Spacecraft Materials”.  No major non-compliances exist on this spacecraft. ***
***Materials Waivers were written on the following hardware:***
***PPT #6, and #9: Use of High Outgassing Materials (low risk - Category III technology)***
***PPT #8: Use of Solithane 113 on PWB (low risk - Category III technology, vendor’s method of business)***
***GPS #1, LFSA #2: Materials not in compliance with the MAR (GPS is a low risk because GPS is not a mission critical.  LFSA is low risk, Category III technology)***

## Workmanship Policies

***Workmanship Policies***

***NASA workmanship standards were flowed down to all the vendors on EO-1***
***However, each hardware developer was allowed to utilize their own internal workmanship standards if they met the intent of the NASA standards***
***NASA/QA concentrated their efforts on the spacecraft and instruments first, then worked with Category III hardware developers***
***Developers were required to provide Printed Wiring Board coupons to GSFC for evaluation***

## Software Assurance

***Software Assurance***

***Minimal effort from NASA/QA was focused here due to cost and schedule constraints. ***
***The Director of Code 300 (Charlie Vanek) insisted that an independent software code assessment be conducted to understand the risks.***
***The purpose of this assessment is to conduct a numerical analysis of the code to understand the quality, maintainability, usability of the code. ***
***Results of this analysis will be provided in the early April timeframe.***

## Safety

***Safety***

***Flight***
***Flight hardware meets EWR 127-1 requirements***
***Ground Support Equipment***
***GSE meets EWR 127-1 requirements***
***Range***
***Submitted final MSPSP to range safety November 1999***
***Hazardous/Non-Hazardous TOPs reviewed by range safety***
***Launch site safety plan submitted***
***Open Issues***
***Submittal of  Final Revision to Hazardous/Non-Hazardous TOPs to be completed by April 1, 2000***

## Major Issues During Box Build-Up

***Major Issues During Box Build-Up***

***No engineering model boards were available during the build of both the WARP and AC boxes***
***Flight boards have received multiple reworks during the troubleshooting process of the boards and their respective box***
***Several boards were rebuilt based on the amount of re-work***
***Cost-driven decision (Lesson Learned here)***
***Focal Plane Contamination***
***Continues to exist after instrument bakeout at Lincoln Laboratory. Focal plane heater was added to bake off contamination. Spacecraft has planned an operational constraint to deal with this contamination.***

## Special Topic:

***Fiber Optic Cable ALERT***

*** ******. . . Michael P. Kelly***
*EO-1 Systems Assurance Manager *

## Fiber Optics Alert

***Fiber Optics Alert***

***MAP conducted some tests on their flight cables and discovered that their cables did not contain the same failures as the Space Station fiber optic cables. ***
***EO-1 cables are similar to the MAP cables***
***EO-1 cables are already mounted to the spacecraft and have successfully passed environmental testing. Inspection of the EO-1 fiber optic cables would represent a major schedule and cost hit to the project.  In addition, there would be a major risk to the spacecraft due to the amount of disassembly involved.  The project is recommending a use-as-is disposition. The SAM concurs with this disposition.  Closed issue. ***

## Special Topic:

***Transceiver Capacitor ALERT & Other Major Alerts***

*** ******. . . Michael P. Kelly***
*EO-1 Systems Assurance Manager *

## GIDEP Alerts

***GIDEP Alerts***

***ATC Capacitor Alert***
***Used in transponder only. Parts were cleared by both test and analysis.  Closed issue.***
***Vishay Resistors Alert***
***Used in Hyperion Instrument only. Vishay resistors were used in 9 different locations due to schedule constraints. Wilbrecht resistors were ordered by TRW as a back-up. The GSFC / TRW agreement was to use the Wilbrecht resistors only if there was a failure with the Vishays. This has not occurred to date. In addition, the Vishay Resistor Assessment Team at GSFC approved the Vishay usage.  Closed issue.***
***Optocoupler Alert***
***Used throughout the spacecraft. GSFC engineers have evaluated each optocoupler application. No problems with usage. Use-as-is disposition.  Closed issue.***

## Mission Assurance Summary

***Mission Assurance Summary***

***Hardware and software are in reasonable shape for a “faster, better, cheaper” mission.  The project has come a long way within the past year to reduce risk of this mission. ***
***Project is doing the best it can with the current staffing levels.  ***
***EO-1 is a medium risk mission for the following reasons: ***
***(1) Minimal insight into the Category III technologies***
***(2) Decisions on part selection were clearly driven by cost and schedule***
***(3) Minimal testing program at box level***
*Most boxes did not receive Thermal Vacuum and EMI testing*