GLAST LAT ProjectLAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Lowell A. Klaisner...

GLAST LAT Project LAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003

1

GLAST Large Area Telescope:GLAST Large Area Telescope:

Lowell A. KlaisnerStanford Linear Accelerator Center

[email protected]

Gamma-ray Large Gamma-ray Large Area Space Area Space TelescopeTelescope LAT Face to FaceLAT Face to Face

July 17-18, 2003July 17-18, 2003


2

Outline for this meetingOutline for this meeting

• Report on the JOG meeting and the rebaselining process

• Get input on how we can be more effective in executing the project

• Review the Strawman schedule

– Identify conflicts

– Identify plan to closure (by DOE review 7/31)

• Initial discussions of how to meet the funding profile

• Subsystem milestones for the next 3 months

• Interdependencies

– TEM & TEMPS integration with CAL modules

– DAQ EGSE for subsystem testing

• Subsystem reports

• Business

– Combining monthly meetings

– Improving communications

• Capture Action Items


3

OverviewOverview

• Motivation for reviewing cost and schedule– CNES in France deciding to not fund LAT work– Completion of CDR/CD-3

• Design has reached a level of maturity• Construction of flight hardware beginning

• Outcome– LAT program needs an additional $17.2 M– Fabrication Phase needs an additional $11.8 M– Operating and commissioning needs an additional $5.5 M

• Primary open issue is the time phasing of the available funds– Additional needs for the fabrication phase in FY04 = $7.6 M– Additional funding for the fabrication phase in FY04

• NASA $3.0 million• DOE $0.0 million


4

Additional Costs to GLAST MissionAdditional Costs to GLAST Mission

All values in millions of dollars

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TotalAdditional Costs

Fabricate CDEs using US funds $2.1 $2.1 $4.2Tracker EM overruns $0.5 $1.0 $1.5ACD overruns $0.9 $0.9Electronics Manufacturing costs $0.8 $0.8Mechanical Design / Fab $2.0 $2.0Schedule Delay $1.0 $1.7 $2.7 $5.4Increase to Contingency $0.7 $1.7 $2.4

Total Added Costs $2.6 $8.5 $3.4 $2.7 $17.2


5

Costs that are not fabrication costsCosts that are not fabrication costs

Note: These reductions represent an equivalent increase commission/operating costs

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TotalRecognize LAT environmental test

as commissioning activity $1.0 $2.7 $3.7Recognize IOC Operating Costs are

not part of fabrication $0.2 $1.0 $0.6 $1.8

Total non-fabrication costs $0.2 $1.0 $1.6 $2.7 $5.5


6

Definition of CD-4Definition of CD-4

Definition of CD-4 Background: When the instrument is completed and functionally tested there is a pre-environmental test review. Then the instrument is shipped from SLAC to a test facility for environmental testing. That is followed by a pre-shipment review, and the instrument is sent to the observatory integrator for integration. Proposal: Presently, CD-4 is defined by successful completion of the pre-shipment review. Using the successful completion of the pre-environmental review is more consistent with present practice on DOE projects. (The instrument will be complete and will meet the functional requirements at that point.). The effect is that the support of the instrument during the environmental test will be in the commissioning phase, similar to the commissioning of other DOE high energy physics detectors. Therefore, the proposal is to define the successful completion of the pre-environmental review as meeting the requirements for CD-4.


7

Definition of the IOCDefinition of the IOC

Definition of the Instrument Operation Center Background: The standard practice with DOE high energy physics detectors is that the operations center for the detector is developed by the scientific collaboration and not included with the construction of the detector. The difference with the LAT project is that the data is gathered remotely, on-orbit, and passed through a Mission Operation Center to the IOC. This requires a level of coordination of requirements and interfaces with the mission resources that is not required with local accelerator based detectors. Proposal: At present, the IOC is included in the construction project. It should be implemented by the science collaboration to be consistent with current practice and to take advantage of the resources in that group. Nonetheless, in the case of the LAT, there is a coordination effort required within the project. An IOC subsystem manager within the project is needed to provide this interface between the IOC, the instrument management and the mission management. The proposal is to include the IOC manager in the management structure of the instrument and he/she is funded by the construction project. The remainder of the costs will be funded by SLAC operating funds and collaboration resources


8

Net Change to the Fabrication PhaseNet Change to the Fabrication Phase

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TotalTotal Added Costs $2.6 $8.5 $3.4 $2.7 $17.2Total non-fabrication costs -$0.2 -$1.0 -$1.6 -$2.7 -$5.5

Net change to the Fab Phase $2.4 $7.6 $1.8 $0.0 $11.8


9

Funding GuidanceFunding Guidance

Total NASA Contribution $1.8 $3.0 $2.5 $1.4 $8.6Total DOE Contribution $0.3 $1.0 $6.0 $1.4 $8.6

New Funding for the Fab PhaseNet change to the Fab Phase $2.4 $7.6 $1.8 $0.0 $11.8Available Fab phase funding $1.9 $3.0 $6.8 $0.0 $11.8

Shortfall $0.5 $4.6 -$5.0 $0.0 $0.0

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Total Funding guidance for the LAT Project

NASA increased Fab funding $1.8 $3.0 $2.0 $6.8NASA increase to commission $0.5 $1.4 $1.9DOE increased Fab funding $0.1 $0.0 $4.9 $5.0DOE increase to operating/commission $0.2 $1.0 $1.1 $1.4 $3.6

Total Funding $2.1 $4.0 $8.4 $2.7 $17.2


10

Total Fabrication Phase Cost and FundingTotal Fabrication Phase Cost and Funding

Baseline cost at risk* $54.3Contingency as percent fo cost at risk 25%

New cost at risk* $63.7Contingency as percent fo cost at risk 25%

*Cost at Risk = Estimated cost to compete minus EPO costs

Previous FY03 FY04 FY05 TotalBaseline Fab Phase Cost $35.4 $35.1 $24.6 $12.8 $107.9Baseline Fab Phase Funding $37.6 $33.5 $31.0 $19.6 $121.7Baseline Fab Contingency $2.2 -$1.6 $6.4 $6.8 $13.8Contingency as % of this years cost 26.0% 53.1%

New Fab Phase Cost $35.4 $37.5 $31.5 $12.9 $117.3New Fab Phase Funding $37.6 $35.9 $38.6 $21.4 $133.5New Fab Contingency $2.2 -$1.6 $7.1 $8.5 $16.2Contingency as % of this years cost 22.6% 65.9%

Note: with the $4.6M shortfall in FY04 the available contingency is $2.5M or 8%


11

Stanford University LoanStanford University Loan

• Stanford University is willing to loan the project $700K to bridge from FY 04 into FY 03– The need for additional funds in FY 03 has decreased

• The mission office at Goddard has helped with ’03• The proposed change to IOC funding reduces FY 03

fabrication phase costs by $200K• This loan would only make the FY 04 cash flow problem

worse• The project proposes to not exercise this loan in FY 03

– It may be possible to negotiate as similar loan for ~$1 million to bridge from FY 05 into FY 04


12

Descope Options to Preserve ScheduleDescope Options to Preserve Schedule

Previously moved beam test from before I&T to Comm. Phase

oTier 1 Reprogram I&T prep and assembly of first towers Reprogram calibration modules for beam testing to be last modules

fabricated – add 2 weeks float Move environmental testing to Spectrum Astro

o Tier 2 Build 16 modules, Fly 14 (Baseline -- Build 18 modules, Fly 16)

Science impact: degradation of Aeff and FOV

o Tier 3 Build 14 modules, Fly 12

Science impact: Significant degradation of Aeff and FOV (below

level-1 requirements)

LAT and Mission designs are highly optimized. All identified descopes that are effective are also painful. Most options address potential schedule slips.


13

SummarySummary

• Project is starting fabrication of flight hardware– Completed the CD-3/CDR

• The instrument design is mature• A review of cost and schedule indicates that the project needs $17.2M

increase in funding to have adequate cost contingency • Also the project needs an additional 3 months of schedule to have

adequate schedule contingency• Define CD-4 as the successful completion of the pre-test review

– The Fabrication Phase needs a $11.7M increase– CD-4 date is unchanged

• Some reorganization of the LAT to better address this next phase• Increased participation by the NASA, DOE and Laboratory

management to assure resources are available• The open issue is the time phasing of the funding

– Funding needs to be moved from FY05 to FY04 OR– The work needs to be reprogrammed to move activities from FY04

to FY05 With a $1 M loan from SU, $3.6 M of work needs to move• DOE Rebaseline review on July 31, 2003


14

FeedbackFeedback

• Get input on how we can be more effective in executing the project


15

LAT Working ScheduleLAT Working Schedule

LAT RFI12/1/05

EnvironmentalTesting15 wk

SystemTest

16 wk

4 wkFLOAT

Install Tower A

8 wk

InstallTowers 13/14

2 wk

InstallGlobal items

6wk

Install Towers B,1-12

13 wk

LAT ASSEMBLY

Available:TKR A/B 4/15 /04CAL A/B 5/20/04

Available:TKR 13/14 10/28/04CAL 13/14 10/21/04

Available:ACD 9/21/04Elex 9/10/04X-LAT 8/2/04

Critical Path

8 wk FLOAT

12 wkFLOAT

Ship LAT1 wk

PrepGRID3 wk

Available:GRID 4/29 /04

12/23/0411/11/04

10/28/04

5/20/04

11/3/057/21/054/21/05

CompleteCAL 1-14

22 wk

7/1/04

4 wk float

714/05

CD-4 CommissionFabrication


16

Remainder of the meetingRemainder of the meeting

• Initial discussions of how to meet the funding profile• Subsystem milestones for the next 3 months• Interdependencies

– TEM & TEMPS integration with CAL modules– DAQ EGSE for subsystem testing

• Subsystem reports• Business

– Combining monthly meetings– Improving communications

• Capture Action Items

GLAST LAT ProjectLAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Lowell A. Klaisner...

Documents

Transcript of GLAST LAT ProjectLAT Face to Face, July 17-18, 2003 1 GLAST Large Area Telescope: Lowell A. Klaisner...